business as usual

So.

Jan Moir is now in full-denial mode, describing complaints of homophobia in her "tawdry gossip for celebrity-snuff fans" column as as "mischevious" and the product of an orchestrated campaign. She's pushing back with the support of the Mail's own PR firm.

The Daily Mail itself is also pretending this is business as normal: the removal of ads from Moir's page is apparently little more than when ads for power companies are (for example) removed from stories about the possible dangers of power masts, though in this case it seems to be that Moir's work is incompatible with advertising for products for humans in general.

Why are these details of ass-covering important?

Because they're entirely unremarkable.

This is part of a pattern of behaviour which has a long and shitty history with the full support (and indeed encouragement) of the Daily Mail's editorial team and owners. Focussing on Jan Moir is to focus on the very tip of an iceberg of virulent hate stretching back decades.

Why not think back to the many, many months spent campaigning against civil partnerships, and the equally concerted effort to block same-sex adoption?

Maybe you'll recall the Scottish Daily Mail's twin screaming headlines, "Schools told to teach gay sex" and "Gay sex lessons in primary schools," from August 2006. Neither of these claims were even slightly true then, and they're still lies now.

Why not just confine your mental trip to the archive of Melanie Phillips' collected text-vomits? Discover how support for gay rights is the primary threat to British society, her attempt to explain why the problem with Islamic homophobia is that it's Islamic, and how the gay rights movement somehow has nothing to do with the rights of gay people.

Then there's always Peter Hitchens, a reliable source of prolonged homophobic screeds.

If you're in a hurry, just wrap your head around the central argument of the paper's editorial stance for over a decade: protecting the rights of a minority of homosexuals is BAD; protecting the rights of a minority of evangelical Christians, however, is GOOD.

Why is this story different in any sense? Timing - Gately hasn't even been buried yet - and celebrity - day-to-day homophobia in the Mail goes almost entirely unmentioned by the larger world.

We shrug. I've lost count of the times I've read on facebook or twitter "that's why we call it the Daily Heil," or "what do you expect from the Mail?" or "It's terrible, we've always known that." Adverts are being moved "away" from Moirs column, but no-one has said they'll stop advertising with the Mail. Companies are scurrying to cover their reputations while not.. actually doing very much.

"Marks & Spencer does not tolerate any form of discrimination," said a spokesman for the retailer. "We have asked the Daily Mail to move our advertisement away from the article. This is a matter for the Daily Mail."

Such bold, brave, consequential action. "This is a matter for the Daily Mail," the same Daily Mail that edited and approved the article in the first place. I'm sure the issue is in safe hands.

"Nestlé has no influence on the editorial content of the publications in which it advertises. The views expressed in the article are from the author and are not shared by Nestlé," said a spokeswoman. "The company has consistently emphasised the importance of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of culture, religion or nationality. This a core company value as expressed in the Nestlé corporate business principles."

But it's the kind of core value which doesn't actually stop Nestle from advertising elsewhere in the paper. It's one of those important core values that doesn't actually inform business practice. It would be jolly nice if major corporations wouldn't wear their commitment to equality like some kind of paper party-hat, worn to entertainment and soothe the awkward child at the table but discarded before the first course arrives.

So. Business as usual. Or is anyone up for trying something else?