I thought newspapers we supposed to report the NEWS not their opinions?
But it seems the Daily Mail has
taken things a stage further by using a headline to:
·
Have a hissy fit
·
Tell us what to think (their
behaviour was ‘perfectly reasonable’ – well that’s cleared that up then…
· Predict the future
The original headline was ‘Vile Product of Welfare
UK’ with a large photograph of Philpott and the
six children and went on to blame the benefits system for Philpott’s behaviour.
Whatever your opinion on the benefits system, the headline drew furious
criticism for being disrespectful to the dead children by using their deaths to
further a political agenda. Let alone use the pictures of the children underneath the headline 'vile product of welfare UK'. The children were not a vile product of anything. They were children.
While abuse of the welfare system clearly played a part - clearly Philpott would not have produced 17 children if he'd had to work to provide for them nor set fire to the house if he didn't anticipate being offered a new house for free to replace it - putting your own children in mortal danger out of greed and spite is the behaviour of a psychopath regardless of your social class. Welfare abuse didn't kill those children. It was their greedy and manipulative parents. There's a difference.
Portraying the children as nothing but fodder for click bait is disrespectful not only to the children but to the Philpotts' former friends, relatives, children's schoolteachers and friends etc. They were lied to and suffered a multiple bereavement. The least the press could do would be to show a bit more respect and not sensationalise a tragedy to sell newspapers. The 2 Philpott's and Mosely are the only ones who are responsible for this. Normal parents protect their children and put their safety and welfare above all else regardless of whether they are on benefits or not.
While abuse of the welfare system clearly played a part - clearly Philpott would not have produced 17 children if he'd had to work to provide for them nor set fire to the house if he didn't anticipate being offered a new house for free to replace it - putting your own children in mortal danger out of greed and spite is the behaviour of a psychopath regardless of your social class. Welfare abuse didn't kill those children. It was their greedy and manipulative parents. There's a difference.
Portraying the children as nothing but fodder for click bait is disrespectful not only to the children but to the Philpotts' former friends, relatives, children's schoolteachers and friends etc. They were lied to and suffered a multiple bereavement. The least the press could do would be to show a bit more respect and not sensationalise a tragedy to sell newspapers. The 2 Philpott's and Mosely are the only ones who are responsible for this. Normal parents protect their children and put their safety and welfare above all else regardless of whether they are on benefits or not.
 |
| Mick and Mairead Philpott |
The next headline was something of a self justifying hissy fit:
This week the Mail was slated for making the
perfectly reasonable point that arson killer Mick Philpott was a product of the
benefits system. Today it is George Osborne's turn. Now tell us what YOU think.
But, beware, the Left WILL try to hijack the result
Regardless of political beliefs I always
thought a paper was there to report the news – NOT to further their own
political agenda.
Post-mortem examinations confirmed that the children
died of smoke inhalation but this didn’t stop
the Daily Mail from writing that Mick Philpott had been jailed for ‘burning
the couple’s six children to death’.
An absolute fabrication for no other reason
than to add sick sensationalism to the article to try to get people outraged
and on side and an overwhelmingly arrogant and cold-hearted lack of respect for
the innocent children who died let alone for the truth.
I can still recall a tragic story a year or
two ago about a small baby who was killed by a dog. The Daily Mail reported
that the paramedics had scaled a fence to reach the child’s body and had to
sneak past the slavering, growling dog as it snarled at them from the corner of
the yard – but the paramedics clearly stated that they didn’t even see the dog
during the rescue attempt and that it was probably indoors when they attended
to the baby in the yard. What purpose did that lie have other than to
sensationalise an already horrific story in which a baby had died? And of course their own agenda regarding dog
attacks, click bait and subsequent advertising revenue.
The Samantha Brick ‘I’m too beautiful’
article is said to have earned the Daily mail over £35,000 in revenue from
advertisers due to the traffic on the site that day. I can’t find the source
for that at the time of writing but will either find it and update this post or
remove the reference over the next couple of days. I’m not the Daily Mail – I
like truth, accuracy and ethics.
At the time of writing – 15:00pm on Friday
05th April 2013 the Daily Mail has over 3500 comments on the article.
I have a Daily Mail account to comment on articles but I can’t be bothered to feed
the trolls.
It’s hard to believe a National Institution
like the Daily Mail could be so cold and ruthless. Were they always like this?
Well the Daily Mail Proprietor, Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail in 1933:
Well the Daily Mail Proprietor, Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail in 1933:
"I urge all British young men and women
to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be
misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful
distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the
British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet
regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation
against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits
Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts
of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours,
but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the
impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny."
I wonder if my password will still work next
I try to log in?
