Today's front page; Mick Jagger at the "Moment he heard L'Wren was dead".
A quite extraordinarily horrible front page.
Their News of the World moment.
This should close down the paper.

I know, a horrible invasion on private grief, and a couple of other papers followed suit. Another unintended consequence of the self-congratulatory era of the mawkish Princess Di fanatics. Now it's deemed a public right to stick a snout into wherever the tears might be.

JK2006 wrote:
Today's front page; Mick Jagger at the "Moment he heard L'Wren was dead".
A quite extraordinarily horrible front page.
Their News of the World moment.
This should close down the paper.

And then.... it goes on to strongly imply that it is Mick Jagger's fault.

The other 'story' that really concerns me is the coverage of the Lotto winner. The Daily Mail identifies where he lives, where his father lives, where his ex-wife an 10yr old daughter live - a gross breach of privacy which provides criminals, kidnappers, scroungers and stalkers with information they should not have.
One can blame the silly man for going public in the first place, but the DM takes it too far in exposing them all to danger

And there's not even any need for it. Doesn't make it "a better story". That's my real worry, the incompetence. Yes it's dangerous, irresponsible, foolish. But worse, it's fucking bad journalism.

Gnomo wrote:
The other 'story' that really concerns me is the coverage of the Lotto winner. The Daily Mail identifies where he lives, where his father lives, where his ex-wife an 10yr old daughter live - a gross breach of privacy which provides criminals, kidnappers, scroungers and stalkers with information they should not have.
One can blame the silly man for going public in the first place, but the DM takes it too far in exposing them all to danger

Some of that, alas, is down to sheer dim-wittedness. I often moan about TV news programmes claiming that an interviewee's safety will be endangered if their identity is revealed, and then they proceed to either show them in silhouette but inside their own house with all the decor easily identifiable (and voice and accent recognisable), or shoot them from the back (as if no one has ever seen them from the back before). If someone local was looking for someone else local then I suspect they'd know them in a second from such ludicrously pointless semi-exposures. As for lotto winners, they must be mad to invite the media to publicise their fortune.

JK2006 wrote:
And there's not even any need for it. Doesn't make it "a better story". That's my real worry, the incompetence. Yes it's dangerous, irresponsible, foolish. But worse, it's fucking bad journalism.

The thing is, Dacre really doesn't care. Daily Mail readers are an odd bunch - go spare at anything that can be construed as "paedophilic" if there is a word, yet are happy to read stories about 13, 14, 15 year old girls and how "they are blooming". And we know what blooming means to the Daily Mail. It means that they are growing mammary glands.

Gnomo wrote:
The other 'story' that really concerns me is the coverage of the Lotto winner. The Daily Mail identifies where he lives, where his father lives, where his ex-wife an 10yr old daughter live - a gross breach of privacy which provides criminals, kidnappers, scroungers and stalkers with information they should not have.
One can blame the silly man for going public in the first place, but the DM takes it too far in exposing them all to danger

Camelot probably told him that if he didn't go public, the papers would root him out anyway, pay Police, neighbours, whoever money to find out exactly where he or she is. It's what happened with the first guy who won the Lottery in the 1990s. He asked for privacy the poor sod and got none.