I know we collectively hate the Daily Mail but...

[ASAS]

It's the only outlet I've seen refer to Adam Johnston as a paedophile.

It's been odd lately. There are a few pro women and pro disabled articles.

But Adam is not a paedophile is he?
He's not attracted to pre pubescent girls.
He's a groomer and a sex offender.

He isn't a paedophile, the daily mail uses that word incorrectly.

I don't care one bit about Adam Johnson and I am glad he has been found guilty and I say this not to defend him but to point a that the word paedophile applies to those who target prepubescent children.

I actually didn't know that, I wrongly assumed paedophile meant predatory to those below age of consent. That's probably why DM is the only place I've seen it.

I'm not sure if the Mail said it or not but their report on the day he was found guilty is interesting.

It has nothing but contempt for him, including reporting that he was told off by the judge for playing on his phone, which they couldn't report before. There's not the tiniest hint of sympathy for him or any criticism of his victim. Which is as it should be- but not always is.

The readers' comments on that day take the same line.

Ephebophilia would be closest I suppose. However, the fact that the Mail has even cared enough to be critical of him is good.

There has been quite a lot of good coverage (and some shit), for example referring to the victim as a child rather than the more ambiguous teenager, say.

Few twats of the "woe, his life is ruined by some mighty external force" ilk, but not too many,

The DM's attitude in this case is not, I'm afraid, a sign of progress but a reflection of the Mail's misogynistic categorisation of women into madonnas & whores. Adam Johnson's victim was a "good girl: by all accounts she was naive, sexually inexperienced and approached him purely as a football fan, not flirtatiously. In DM world, she therefore deserves sympathy. Had he slept with a sexually experienced 15 year old, it would have been - literally- a different story.