The Daily Mail Tendency Needs You!

So.

The Daily Mail Tendency is up and running again, with my good friend The Moai pledging (through the medium of a New Year’s Resolution, natch) to blog at least once a week. I will also try to come up with some posts for that blog. But we are also looking for others to write some posts laying into The Daily Mail - Henry North London may also be writing some stuff for us. But we’d like more help…

To understand exactly what we want to do, I’ll answer some questions that would spring to my mind if I was reading this post:

Why The Daily Mail?

There are already some sites having a pop at the tabloid press, and doing it very well. However, The Daily Mail strikes me as perhaps the worst of a pretty hideous bunch. The Daily Mail has an absurd veneer of respectability that hides the worst excesses of this hateful rag. Make no mistake about it, The Daily Mail isn’t about informing or entertaining. It is about spreading hate and lies across the UK. They thrive on fear and ignorance, without any real recourse to facts, common sense or empathy.

Famously, Dennis Potter once likened Rupert Murdoch to a cancer on British society. Well, if Murdoch and his rags are a cancer on British Society, the The Daily Mail represent the slow demise of Britain into barely functioning psychosis.

What would I have to do?

Well, nothing if you don’t want to.

However, if you do wish to write for The Daily Mail Tendency, then select an article you don’t like (and there should be no shortage of them), and deal with it. You can fisk it, you can swear about it, you can highlight it with incredulity, point and laugh at it or tear it apart in a rage. Just send the results to me, and if it meets our rigorous editorial standards (i.e. It has a pop at the target newspaper) then we’ll publish. Any contributions to thenamelesst[at]yahoo[dot]co[dot]uk.

Ooo, and this idea just occurred to me – if you fancy trawling through the comments on The Daily Mail website and highlighting some of the more insane comments to send to us (a la Speak Your Branes), feel free to do so. Although I warn you now (having tried to do this before) you’ll need a strong stomach and a lot of patience.

What do you hope to achieve?

Why does life have to be about achieving things?

Realistically, we’re not going to do a great deal to harm The Daily Mail. Sadly. But we can add a voice of protest against this hate rag, and we may be able to influence just a few people who read that hate rag to make them think about what they are reading, and question it. The more people who question the delusions, ignorance and deceptions of this type of newspaper the better.

Ultimately, The Daily Mail has done a lot of damage to this country. If you want to help rectify that, even if it is just to call The Daily Mail a “load of fucking shite”, get in contact.

Israel v. Hamas - who will YOU choose?

A quote for the TV series Peepshow that seems particularly pertinent given the ongoing events in the Middle East:

Jez: Mark likes Israel, I'm Palestine. Makes it much more interesting if you pick sides.

Now, I’m not going to claim that all of the coverage has taken on this sort of mindless, “which football team do you support” mentality. However reading some of the reporting has made me think that the most important things on the minds of many is not reporting or commenting on the facts, but rather justifying whichever side the reporter or commentator happens to support. It reminds me of the mindless fools who support political parties regardless of what that party happens to be doing at any given time.

Instinctively, I’d be inclined to side with Israel. That nation is fighting for survival in a region filled with people who would happily wipe them off the face of this earth. And they have to endure the constant threat of terror and regular attacks from Hamas. Frankly, they need to flex their muscles every now and again to remind people that they do have teeth, and will fight back if the need arises.

That said, I am also very aware that Israel has no time whatsoever for the concept of a proportionate response. There are the national equivalent of Begbie from Trainspotting - if you spill their pint, they are going to glass you in the face and then kick you to death for good measure. You can argue that Hamas should stop prodding the angry Israeli bear with a stick, but then again, you do have to concede that life in the Gaza Strip will lead to mass radicalisation.

The issues are far more important than simple side taking allows, and that is before you even consider the ramifications of the history of that region. Also, the Middle East situation is both stunningly complex and deeply human. This current conflict shows the human side to it; Hamas can’t afford to lose face by not attacking Israel, and the Israeli government will not lose face by allowing these attacks to go unpunished. It is very easy to take sides over here in the UK, far away from the conflict. If those who take sides so easily were in the Gaza Strip or in Israel, and took the time to experience how the different sides are living, I suspect they might be less willing to take sides. And also might realise that it is going to take slightly more than some chin-stroking pontificating in national newspapers and in various blogs to improve life in that troubled region.

Whose side am I on? Neither. I’m against the violence, but equally I can understand how difficult it will be to stop the violence. And I am absolutely sure that the mindless partisan side taking and advice giving here in the UK will achieve nothing more than filling column inches and blogposts.

Privacy and Max Mosley

When is your private life not private? When it can shift newspapers, of course.

As Max Mosley has found to his cost.

Regardless of what you think about Mosley’s activities, try a spot of empathy for a moment. Imagine it is you, having a sexual encounter that could be construed as embarrassing, paraded across the headlines. Imagine how it must feel to have your intimate moments splashed across the tabloids. Let’s be honest, it wouldn’t be grand for anyone, would it?

And that is exactly what has happened to Mosley. There is no real public value to this story; Mosley’s sex life is his issue and his issue alone. It doesn’t matter whether he likes kinky sex and it doesn’t matter whether or not he likes to dress up as a Nazi. It wouldn’t matter if he liked to dress up as Bobby Davro whilst having a carrot shoved where the sun don’t shine at the same time as furtively jerking off – it should be private to him. As unpleasant as you might perceive someone else’s idea of getting their rocks off might be, as long as it is between consenting adults, it should not matter.

What does intrigue me is the way this story is being reported. Take this article from The Daily Hate. It works quite hard to sound neutral – and no wonder, because if they criticise Mosley directly no doubt they will end up in court as well – but the detail the article goes into is quite striking. I mean, the article is so long that it is broken into sub-headings. There is a level of detail that you just wouldn’t see with a far more important story – like the latest abortion of a policy from Gordon Brown, for example. There is even a picture that details exactly what Mosley has been getting up to. That is quite startling – a daily tabloid publishing a photo of an act that would be described by some as depraved.

There is only one reason why there is so much detail in the article. It is because the readers of the paper want that level of detail. The article is titillation, pure and simple. It is a lurid little story for the readers; a chance to marvel at what other people get up to – and then the opportunity to judge those people. The message is simple from this story – and from other famous people who have had their private lives splashed across the tabloids. You have a right to a private life, just so long as you are not a (even very slight) celebrity or person of interest who has a slightly unconventional sex life. If you are such a person, then your sex life is going to be splashed across the headlines – like it or not.

I don’t know whether this prurient interest in the sex lives of others is curiously British thing or not – although I rather suspect it is. What I do know is that private lives should be private, not fair game for any tabloids trying to shift extra copies of their rags through a sordid little article.

String 'em all up...

...Or so say 99% of you, according to The Sun. Of course, they don't quite reveal exactly who they are talking about. They don't spell out who you is.

There is an online vote; it doesn't show you the results. Judging by the comments on their debate, more than the tiny figure of 1% oppose the death penalty, despite the awful killers convicted over the past few days. And some of The Sun writers (over 50% of those quoted!) oppose the death penalty as well, at least for this type of killer. The closest we get to actually defining who the "you" is that The Sun refers to is in the phrase "Sun readers".

And I can believe that. I can believe that 99% of The Sun readers want to see hanging brought back. And no, this is not just a typical "diss The Sun readers" rant. Because I can understand where The Sun readers are coming from. The crimes of Wright, Dixie and now Bellfield are utterly awful, and part of me wants to shout "hang the fuckers!" from the very top of my voice. But the other reason why I am not surprised that the vote came out at 99% is the media itself.

The response to the convictions of Wright, Dixie and Bellfield has been little short of hysterical. It is time for a reality check. First of all, all of these people are now in prison and, although Bellfield has yet to be sentenced at the time of writing, very unlikely to be freed any time soon. They were a threat, they aren't any longer. I'd be surprised if any of these people was ever released from prison - I certainly hope they won't be.

Also, each of these terrible individuals seems to have acted on some sort of demented psychological impulse. They were all cunning, clever, psychopaths. The death penalty would not have stopped them. I'd be surprised if anything actually stopped these sexual predators.

And let's get some perspective on these murders. Only one of these killers can technically be described as a serial killer - Wright. Only he has been convicted of killing three or more people. Bellfield killed two, Dixie just one. And whilst each and everyone of these evil fuckers may end up in court charged with more murders, at the moment, their combined death toll is just eight. Which (as awful as their crimes may be) is next to nothing in a population of over 60 million.

Which leads me to my final point; yes, this trio might have killed more people. But they have yet to be convicted of anything other than those eight murders - five of which you can attribute to the same person. Killers they may be, but they are still innocent until proven guilty. And the last thing we want is a Lucas Report style approach in this country. "Oh, yeah, he killed someone. Let's see what else we can pin on the fucker."

Ultimately, if you take these crimes individually, then they are terrible, heinous crimes, but rare acts here in the UK. The reason why they seem to be far more terrifying and concerning than they are - as well as the impact of the media coverage - is that the trials all ended at a similar point. Had these people been convicted at varying times, then the impact of the convictions would have been much diminished. Since they all seem to have been sent down at the same time, it all appears far worse and far more terrifying than it actually is. The end of the trials comes as a result of a quirk of the judicial calendar - and the last thing we want to be doing is making policy that will decide whether people live or die based on any such quirk.

NB: I'm against the death penalty, if you haven't already picked up on that. For a full explanation, see here.

Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight

I haven’t commented on the death of Heath Ledger here at the Strangeness, partly because I have very little to say about his tragic, premature death, but mainly because there is enough unmitigated guff spewing forth about his demise all over the internet. spEak You’re bRanes has some great examples, if you want to see the thoughts of morons.

However, given his last film work was on The Dark Knight – and being an unashamed Batman fan – some of the things being written about the sequel to Batman Begins are irritating me. Take this article in the Telegraph – it suggests that one option for the studio (if Ledger didn’t fully complete the film) is not releasing it.

I’m sorry, what? Not release it? Abandon a project that has a projected budget of $150 million? Abandon the last completed film of a talented young actor? That’s just fucking stupid, if you pardon my French.

But nothing compared to the assertion that playing the Joker may have killed Ledger. I don’t doubt that Ledger put his all into the role – he was a talented and committed actor. But a role pushing someone over the edge seems just crass. People have played challenging roles before – what about Hopkins playing the demented Hannibal Lector, or Sam Riley playing the suicidal Ian Curtis? Actors should be able to disassociate themselves from their roles – after all, the roles are not real. The shoot may have been tough on Ledger, but there’s no evidence it pushed him over the edge. In fact, the director suggests Ledger took a lot from the role, and seemed to enjoy it.

Which leads me to my final point. The Dark Knight has claimed a life. That of a stunt performer. Let’s hope that any on screen tributes to Ledger are matched by tributes to the stunt man who died whilst making the film.

Ultimately, Ledger’s death is a tragedy – for his fans, but much more so for his family. The Dark Knight will form part of his legacy – which is surprisingly rich for a 28 year old. Anything else is meaningless, pointless, tedious speculation.