thessalian (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thessalian) wrote2009-10-16 06:46 pm
thessalian) wrote2009-10-16 06:46 pm
Spider Jerusalem Would Threaten To Eat Her.
I tend not to read the Daily Mail, precisely because of things like this. It doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation as a bastion of unbiased journalism. However, this... This takes the biscuit.
The Americans on my flist probably won't be overly familiar with Steve Gately as a name. Not being a fan of boy bands in general or Boyzone in particular, I wasn't either. So when Gately turned up dead, I was not particularly devastated or anything, but I spared a sympathetic thought for the family, didn't wonder much about what happened and went on about my business.
Apparently, a columnist at the Mail named Jan Moir is not quite so considerate.
From what I'm able to tell, Moir is of the school of sensationalist newsgathering that encourages and thrives off muckraking. What happens when there is no muck to rake? She makes shit up. Think I'm kidding? Go read. Go and read this hideous woman ignore and belittle a coroner's report and a mother's statement of family medical history in her insistence that Gately must have died from 'sleazy' causes, essentially because he was gay and a celebrity. While she claims that no healthy young man could possibly die suddenly of natural causes (which I will deal with in a minute) and that's why it doesn't ring true, the fact is that his sexuality, which should have no bearing on this, and his lifestyle (which she only hints at anyway, given that actually doing any legitimate research on it would likely disprove her point and damage her libellous article) are the main reasons she gives to support a claim that has no weight in the face of a coroner's report.
As far as death by natural causes goes, age has nothing to do with it. A friend of mine from my A-level years died at age 18 from a totally out-of-the-blue cerebral haemorrhage - one of the blood vessels in his brain had a weak wall somewhere along the line; it blew and killed him. It was sad, he was young, it shouldn't have happened, but whatever Moir claims, these things do happen. Sometimes, things wear out and people die at a time when you wouldn't expect them to. The human body is ... well, it's a really weird and imperfect system. No two are the same. Sometimes, shit happens. People who treat their bodies appallingly can live long and moderately healthy lives while people who live as healthy a lifestyle as possible die of cancer that came out of nowhere. It happens, particularly when (as stated by Gately's mother) existing genetic predispositions are involved.
So what was the point of this article? Sensationalism, that's what. I write columns, and frankly, there's enough to get up in arms about in the celebrity world without painting some poor guy whose only crime was being gay and famous and dying young as having died a sleazy death. I hope to as many gods as I can name that this witch never works in journalism again - not only is what she did disrespectful, cruel, libellous and bigoted in the extreme, it's also unprofessional. To cite the facts and then dismiss them as irrelevant in the face of her own opinion? That's poor journalism taken to a whole new level; a level where it can't even be judged on a scale from one to SUCK.
So in short, I think Charlie Brooker says it better than I ever could; hideous woman needs stamping on by any journalistic standards agency that can be called upon. This should not set a precedent. This is not okay. This is not journalism. This woman needs to never work in journalism again.
The Americans on my flist probably won't be overly familiar with Steve Gately as a name. Not being a fan of boy bands in general or Boyzone in particular, I wasn't either. So when Gately turned up dead, I was not particularly devastated or anything, but I spared a sympathetic thought for the family, didn't wonder much about what happened and went on about my business.
Apparently, a columnist at the Mail named Jan Moir is not quite so considerate.
From what I'm able to tell, Moir is of the school of sensationalist newsgathering that encourages and thrives off muckraking. What happens when there is no muck to rake? She makes shit up. Think I'm kidding? Go read. Go and read this hideous woman ignore and belittle a coroner's report and a mother's statement of family medical history in her insistence that Gately must have died from 'sleazy' causes, essentially because he was gay and a celebrity. While she claims that no healthy young man could possibly die suddenly of natural causes (which I will deal with in a minute) and that's why it doesn't ring true, the fact is that his sexuality, which should have no bearing on this, and his lifestyle (which she only hints at anyway, given that actually doing any legitimate research on it would likely disprove her point and damage her libellous article) are the main reasons she gives to support a claim that has no weight in the face of a coroner's report.
As far as death by natural causes goes, age has nothing to do with it. A friend of mine from my A-level years died at age 18 from a totally out-of-the-blue cerebral haemorrhage - one of the blood vessels in his brain had a weak wall somewhere along the line; it blew and killed him. It was sad, he was young, it shouldn't have happened, but whatever Moir claims, these things do happen. Sometimes, things wear out and people die at a time when you wouldn't expect them to. The human body is ... well, it's a really weird and imperfect system. No two are the same. Sometimes, shit happens. People who treat their bodies appallingly can live long and moderately healthy lives while people who live as healthy a lifestyle as possible die of cancer that came out of nowhere. It happens, particularly when (as stated by Gately's mother) existing genetic predispositions are involved.
So what was the point of this article? Sensationalism, that's what. I write columns, and frankly, there's enough to get up in arms about in the celebrity world without painting some poor guy whose only crime was being gay and famous and dying young as having died a sleazy death. I hope to as many gods as I can name that this witch never works in journalism again - not only is what she did disrespectful, cruel, libellous and bigoted in the extreme, it's also unprofessional. To cite the facts and then dismiss them as irrelevant in the face of her own opinion? That's poor journalism taken to a whole new level; a level where it can't even be judged on a scale from one to SUCK.
So in short, I think Charlie Brooker says it better than I ever could; hideous woman needs stamping on by any journalistic standards agency that can be called upon. This should not set a precedent. This is not okay. This is not journalism. This woman needs to never work in journalism again.
no subject
I hope they take her for everything she has.