The Family Paper

I don’t think this screengrab needs much of an introduction because it’s become so typical of what you can expect to find on the wall of flesh that makes up the Mail Online ‘Femail’ section:

The question in particular is a very unsavoury reminder of the recent Mail coverage [link takes you to No Sleep ‘Til Brooklands excellent post on the subject] of the gang-rape of two twelve-year-old girls and the sympathy given to the perpetrators because it was implied that they couldn’t tell the real age of the girls and believed them to be sixteen. I really do wonder if the person responsible for asking it could provide any logical justification for putting it under the headline?

It also needs to be asked how such Mailbait coverage – which clearly seems to be aimed at men – can justifiably be put into the Femail section of the website?

Kendall Jenner / Kardashian: Mailbait extraordinaire

Following on from my post on how the Mail hypocritically cashes in on publishing vast quantities of semi-nude photos of celebrities, all the while wagging their fingers and shaking their heads in disgust it is even more disturbing when the girl featured is only 14 years old. One of their favourite female celebrities is Kim Kardashian – who the Mail once put down with the observation that she: ‘has made a bit of a name for herself from turning up to the opening of an envelope’, which must make the Mail even more pathetic given that they feel the need to cover each non-event in huge depth with a flurry of articles.

Kendall Jenner (Kardashian is always used nearby to get maximum traffic) is famous for two reasons:

  1. She is the half-sister of Kim Kardashian.
  2. Aged 14 she posed in a bikini on a beach. The Daily Mail now insists on always referring to it as ‘THAT bikini shoot’ whenever Kim or Kendall are mentioned, along with an obligatory photo.

To make the point really sink in about just how utterly pathetic the Mail website is let’s get down to some figures. First off, the Daily Mail is so disturbed by ‘racy’ photos of a 14 year old in a bikini they publish them in at least 6 separate articles:

  1. After THAT bikini shoot, Kim Kardashian’s little sister Kendall lands a role in a pop video.
  2. ‘I never intended to be racy’: Kim Kardashian’s 14-year-old sister Kendall defends bikini photo shoot.
  3. Now that’s more age appropriate! Kim Kardashian’s little sister Kendall is back to being a regular teenager.
  4. Kendall’s the rebel Kardashian as she hits the red carpet in biker boots NOT high heels.
  5. That’s better! Kardashian sister Kendall, 14, dresses her age after bikini row.
  6. Keeping up with the Kardashian’s careers: Now youngest sister Kylie’s a model. [This article features photos of 12 year old Kylie, photos which are more ‘age appropriate’ than the bikini shot of Kendall they print immediately below.]

You can kind of spot the logic behind how they print the bikini shots; basically if Kendall wears anything other than a bikini the Mail can write a story about how she is finally dressing ‘appropriate to her age’ whilst at the same time they can publish once more the bikini shoot photos. Even for the Daily Mail website this is really scraping the barrel of what can be considered newsworthy.

Next up, a simple search of the Mail website for ‘Kardashian’ returns 427 articles. I don’t even know what this person does. After flicking through a few articles it appears she is some kind of ‘reality TV star’ who is famous for being famous, if that makes any sense. The Daily Mail love her because she takes a good photo and being on reality TV they can publish screen prints of her doing something completely innocuous and pass it off as news.

A worldwide Google search for ‘Kim Kardashian’ reveals a Daily Mail article on page 2, which is not a bad result. However, search for UK pages only and the Mail website dominates results – getting 3 out of 3 ‘news results’. Again, this kind of gutter journalism is all about driving traffic to the website. The Daily Mail might pretend to have moral objections to a 14 year old posing in what they label as a ‘racy’ photo shoot. However, these objections still don’t stop them publishing said photos over and over again in complete non-stories.

Once again, please forgive me for publishing this statement from Mail Online editor Martin Clarke:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.

Mailbait, perversion and hypocrisy

The Daily Mail has a worrying obsession with young girls / women and it is deeply unpleasant and very hypocritical. Today’s article really seems to be wallowing in obsessive detail about the lack of bra on a 17 year old and the presence of a bra on a 10 year old – yes, a 10 year old: ‘Don’t start taking fashion tips from Britney, Miley! Miss Cyrus emulates her pop idol’s style as she steps out in Los Angeles’. The ‘author’ of the piece is Georgina Littlejohn who proudly, easily and knowingly sinks to splashing round knee deep in the banal shit that has made her father so wealthy as she has for her entire ‘career’.

The main premise of the article is typical Daily Mail Hollywood fare: famous person steps outside and therefore must be clearly making some sort of statement or flaunting themselves simply because the Daily Mail pays someone to shove a camera in their face. Today we learn that Miley Cyrus has gone out for lunch without a bra, and clearly this justifies a few hundred words and 5 photos of said ‘inappropriate attire’ (if it is so inappropriate or offensive, don’t print it, repeatedly). For good measure they also throw in a picture of Britney Spears without a bra, just in case you had forgotten what that looked like – although that is difficult given the frequency with which the Daily Mail prints a picture of Britney Spears without a bra.

Just when you think the Daily Mail could not get any creepier – or, more bluntly, more hypocritically perverted – Georgina then turns her gaze to 10 year old Noah Cyrus:

Noah, however, didn’t follow her sister’s fashion mistake and remembered to wear underwear.

But being only ten years old, she doesn’t actually need to wear one, and she certainly didn’t need to flash it from beneath her vest top.

And unlike most mothers who probably wouldn’t even let their little girls leave the house dressed like that, Tish Cyrus happily posed for a snap for a fan alongside her girls and their inappropriate attire.

Naturally the Daily Mail prints a photo of this ‘innapropriate’ photo – just so you can look at as well as read about the bra being worn by a 10 year old. Is this what journalism has become? Sneaking peeks at a 10 year olds bra and insinuating that it is the wearing of the bra that is perverse, rather than printing it in a newspaper and writing about it? Amazingly, Georgina is just getting into her stride:

Then again, this is the mother who gave her approval to a fashion range designed by her daughter which was slammed by critics for being highly unsuitable for little girls.

Earlier this year, there was an outcry from parents after Disney star Noah Cyrus launched a children’s clothing range which included an array of mini skirts, skin-tight lycra dresses, and high-heeled knee-high boots.

And last October, she also caused controversy when she attended a Halloween party dressed in a black lace-up mini dress with PVC knee-high boots.

And yes, you guessed correctly Noah is pictured in both outfits directly underneath this paragraph. So there you have it, Tish Cyrus is an awful mother for letting her daughters go out in this deeply inappropriate way, but here, have a page full of photos so you can see just how filthy these young girls are. Just remember the Mail website and its plethora of Mailbait articles the next time it tries to lecture us on ‘Broken Britain’, teenage sex or any other form of moral outrage it feels. Britain is not broken, but Daily Mail journalism certainly is.


Another just turned 18/19 female is featured in a leering Mail article and the comments do not appeared to be censored, with hilarious results. The article headline just about sums up the Mail’s attitude towards women: ‘All grown up: Julia Roberts’ niece Emma is a child star no longer in revealing new roles‘ and the article contains 6 photos of Emma Roberts in varying states of undress. The comments are among the best I have ever seen on the Mail website:


‘Mailbait’ should become a dictionary term immediately. Once again, it is vitally important that we all remember the words of Mail Online editor Martin Clarke and laugh at them:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.