re: victimhood

It's beyond debate that female politicians (and other women in public life) find themselves the subject of (frequently) sexist elements of mainstream journalism: witness Quentin Letts' fixation with Ruth Kelly's weight and wardrobe choices, or the determined attacks on Natasha Kaplinksy as a fashion-obsessed airhead.

I'm also uncomfortable with pejorative attacks which simply claim someone is mad or mentally unstable - "Mad Nad" being one such nickname that I've chosen not to repeat. So I have some sympathy for Nadine Dorries' complaint (even if she then somewhat undermines it by claiming "And it’s always men who use it. They’re usually ugly. And often quite obese.")

However, it's important to maintain some sense of difference between unfair, ad-hominem and sexist attacks, and critiques of a politician who - regardless of gender - has shown herself to be a bully, a hypocrite and the proponent of illogical and incoherent arguments.

You can, quite obviously, do the latter without the former, and there's perhaps a responsibility for people who engage in this dialogue to be conscious of that (particularly given the propensity of certain politicians for well stage-managed bouts of public outrage).

because self-regulation works so very well

Compare and contrast:

1. Paul Dacre's claim that the Press Complaints Commission is successful because of the deep personal shame felt by editors called before it.

AND

2. Daily Express editor Peter Hill's "defence" of his paper's coverage of Madeleine McCann's disappearence, and his strange amnesia of the numerous PCC complaints found against his paper.

Choice quote from Roy Greenslade's column:

Hill was a PCC commissioner at the time his paper was forced to apologise to the McCanns, and was asked by an MP why he had not resigned. He said he did consider resigning but "a strong majority" of PCC members told him he should not do so.

This are the people who Dacre would have us believe are beyond all reproach and accusation of industry bias.

Shorter Daily Mail: ZOMG TEH GAYZOR

As the title says, shorter Daily Mail: ZOMG TEH GAYZORS.

Though it might pain the Mail to mention it, lessons about all relationships will become compulsory when personal, social and health education (PSHE) classes become part of the compulsory national curriculum in primary and secondary schools. It's not just about the deadly, deadly homos - and parents will still be able to exclude their children from sex education classes if they so wish.

Notably, both renta-moralists quoted in the story present the image of a dangerously alluring homosexuality into which children might be ensnared:

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said that 'pressing the virtues of homosexuality' could lead to more experimentation, which could be 'harmful' to children.

He said: 'What we don't want to see is vulnerable young people being exploited by outside groups which want to normalise homosexuality.

'If this guidance purports to force faith schools to teach things which go against their faith then it is profoundly illiberal and must be resisted at all costs.'

You may recognise the rhetorical slant of "pressing the virtues" from the educational homophobia of the 1980s - of debates surrounding Section 28 which voiced the irrational belief that being gay could be "promoted," and so spread amongst the vulnerable. As I've joked, uncomfortably, there is the persistent belief that all that stands betweeen civilisation as we know it and a same-sex orgy is a convincing ad campaign. To the second of our self-appointed guardians:

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: 'Making PSHE a statutory part of the national curriculum could be used as a vehicle to promote positive images of homosexual relationships.

'It is difficult to see how teaching children as young as 11 about same-sex relationships and civil partnerships fits in with a study of personal wellbeing, and many parents will be very concerned about the prospect of such lessons being imposed over their heads.'

Not too hard to discover the bigotry there: Wells sees being gay (or even seeing gay people and their relationships as legitimate) as incompatible with "personal wellbeing." This is, incidentally, the same model of personal wellbeing that advocates a policy of directed ignorance when it comes to sexual health. The very idea of a positive image of same-sex relationships is seen as abhorrent.

There is something desperately sad about the version of hetereosexuality imagined by Wells and Calvert that thinks even exposure to the acknowledgement of gay people will leave it in ashes.

a policy of deliberate ignorance is not balance

One step forward, one step into an abyss of stupidity:

The government has announced plans to make sex education compulsory for pupils aged five to 11, dividing faith groups and safer sex campaigners.

Under the plans all secondary schools will have to teach teenagers about contraception, safer sex and relationships, but faith schools will also be free to preach against sex outside of marriage and condoms. [...]

It means that all secondary schools in England will for the first time have to teach a core curriculum about sex and contraception in the context of teenagers' relationships, but teachers in faith schools will be free to tell them that having sex outside of marriage, homosexuality or using contraception is wrong.

You'll want to put the last sentence of that story alongside this one from last March before you start to let out a long, hearty scream:

A report from the Commons education select committee singles out Catholic schools, which, it says, should be forced to make public their commitment to stop gay pupils being bullied. The Catholic church has refused to follow government guidelines urging schools to set up specific policies against homophobic bullying.

So, having persistently ignored the government's request to address substantial and widespread bullying of young gay people in school, the Catholic Church - the loudest voice amongst denominational schools on this issue - may be about to be rewarded with the explicit permission to preach against the legitimacy of gay people.

How, exactly, will this policy sit next to the Childrens Minister's previous stated commitment to confronting homophobic language in schools?

The idea that this position represents some kind of balance is farcical:

Sir Alasdair Macdonald acknowledged that giving schools the right to apply their values was "difficult" and could conflict with the curriculum.

He said: "What we're trying to do, and I accept it's difficult, is find a balance between young people having an entitlement to knowledge, facts, information but where schools, particularly schools with a particular faith interest or other disposition, also have a right to put that in context of their particular institution. Parents have chosen to send a child to that particular institution knowing that will be part of the education.

"I'm not suggesting that's easy and I'm glad it's not my responsibility to do it. What we're looking for is some kind of balance between ... the entitlement of young people and how much schools have a right to put that in their context."

What kind of "knowledge, facts and information" can be involved when certain faiths don't even believe that information should be discussed? How can any factual education about contraception and sexual health be successful if its legitimacy is continually undermined by those entrusted with that task? How do you recognise the legitimacy of gay people while simultaenously preaching that they are sinful?

Either this government believes that gay people are equal citizens in this culture, or it doesn't. Either this government believes ALL students are entitled to information which will allow them to protect themselves in adult life, or it doesn't.

Here's the deal: you take money from the state to subsidise a religious education, and there are strings attached. One of those strings is keeping the religious justifications for prejudice and ignorance out of the classroom.

EDIT: Making the sex and contraception within relationships element of the PSHE curriculum compulsory is good news - and long overdue. That news, though, is horribly soured and undermined by the above.

defamation for fun and profit

Somewhat unsuprisingly, The Daily Mail provides the most detail of Nadine Dorries' impending legal action:

Announcing the legal action yesterday, Ms Dorries, 51, the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, said that on the advice of her solicitor she was refusing to say who she was suing, but Tory sources confirmed she was taking action for defamation against [Damian] McBride.

It's that special kind of refusing comment when you actually give a full and comprehensive briefing, providing it's off-the-record.

So defamation it is. Though there is no single comprehensive definition of what is defamatory, various suggestions have been made before the courts, including any material which:

* Is to a person’s discredit.
* Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.
* Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.
* Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Interestingly, a statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory. Carter-Ruck obligingly advises prospective clients that:

Making a defamatory allegation, whether orally or in writing, even to one individual other than the claimant himself is sufficient to give rise to a claim (although the court has the power to stop a case proceeding in limited publication cases if it would be disproportionate for them to proceed to trial).

Any communication to anyone other than the person actually defamed is, in law, capable of constituting publication. A draft manuscript sent by an author to his or her editor is a publication.

All of which gives a sense of the breadth of what might constitute defamation, and the potentially self-evident quality of a case against McBride. The real questions may be over the degree of damage to Dorries' perceived reputation (hence the recent seeming web crawl to find repetition of the contents of the original emails).

Gaby Hinsliff in The Observer notes that:

The announcement comes only days after Dorries demanded - and received - a public apology from Gordon Brown in the Commons, raising the intriguing possibility that Brown's own words could form part of her evidence.

The key here is not that Brown is likely to be found culpable in a defamation action - even though Dorries has asserted that "these emails were part of a dirty tricks campaign orchestrated by Downing Street" - but that Brown might be dragged into court and directly (and embarassingly) grilled on his personal knowledege of McBride's activities. Whatever the legal merits of the case, it's clearly also a floor show.

Finally, it may be remarkable how closely the parliamentary Tory party has wed themselves to this media-oriented strategy, given their clearly organised willingness to give Dorries the floor during last week's PMQs. Is this really going to be how they try to win the next election?

waving to passing lawyers

Suddenly the increased flow of traffic searching for "nadine dorries smear" over the last week makes sense.

(Note: "Sexgolf"? WTF?)

It is slightly unfortunate for that case that very few bloggers who write about Dorries thought it ever necessary to repeat the details of the unfounded claims made against her, instead choosing to emphasise her own past behaviour as a smear-merchant (see, for example, the "abortion industry" accusation).

This does make it slightly difficult to claim that the original allegations were maliciously and deliberately spread on the internets by Brownite conspirators: by the time most of anyone had heard the claims, it was through the news that the claims were false. Still, I'm sure someone will try to argue it anyway.

Though we'll have to wait to see just who Dorries is attempting to sue at No.10 (and the legal grounds for that case, given her previous shakey rationales for action) it's obvious that we're looking at a headline grab - the only reliable outcome, in any case. Isn't calculated outrage fun?

margaret thatcher, class warrior

Regarding The Daily Telegraph's declaration that a 50% tax rate is the equivalent of class war, here's Charles Moore doing his very best to ignore the fact that - despite being the patron saint of low taxes - Margaret Thatcher held the top tax rate at 60% for the first nine years of her rule.

Apparently, the rationale that "she was perfectly capable of putting up taxes out of immediate necessity (in 1979, she all but doubled VAT)" does not apply in the context of global recession. Okay?

paul dacre: the daily mail was never against the MMR vaccine

Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week on the issue of press standards. Questioned about disciplinary action taken over inaccurate reporting, Dacre responds:

There's a bit of an urban myth that The Daily Mail was against the MMR triple jab.

You can watch it here, at around the 1hr 20mins mark of the hearing.

He goes on to argue that the Mail printed articles for and against the vaccine, and that "all newspapers" were involved in that kind of reporting. As you'll probably recall, the Daily Mail - far and beyond all other papers - demonstrably lead the charge in raising fears about the MMR vaccine.

To illustrate the scale of Dacre's distortion, here's a small selection of the stories which the Daily Mail saw fit to print on the subject of MMR: New warning on MMR jab, Were MMR warnings ignored?, Vaccine is poisonous substance, MMR vaccine side-effects 'not fully tested', New evidence revives MMR fears, New MMR link found to autism, MMR fears gain support, MMR jab "may have triggered autism" says new research and - amongst many articles by Peter Hitchens - Is it really our duty to risk our children's lives with this jab? That's a very small sampling of headlines from 2001-2 alone.

Dacre's claim in the hearing is that the Mail's "gloss" on the story was (then PM) Tony Blair's supposed hypocrisy in not revealing whether his children had been inoculated, a notion which ignores the far greater, unrelated number of articles published both before and long after that particular issue was raised.

The Mail repeatedly overstated the potential risks involved in vaccination, prominently reporting the concerns of a small minority of anti-vaccine campaigners and frequently presenting them on equal footing with the overwhelming weight of evidence and opinion that argued MMR was necessary and safe. In other words, the Mail created and sustained the pretence of balance where none existed.

Even when the safety of the vaccine was reported, it was presented in contexts which re-introduced the possibility of genuine doubt:

New research says no link between MMR and autism

New research says there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism or bowel disease, but critics claim the study is a missed opportunity to find new evidence.

At the centre of this coverage was Melanie Phillips' series of scaremongering articles challenging the safety of the vaccine, including (but not limited to) This baby suffered brain damage and epilepsy after the MMR jab, International evidence against MMR, MMR: the true facts, MMR - the truth revealed, MMR - The Truth and Are we facing an autism epidemic?

To pretend that this constitutes balanced reporting is ridiculous. To pretend that this record of journalism - which continues up until this year - doesn't reach the point of actively campaigning against MMR is also absurd.

The rest of the hearing is worth sitting through - not least for Dacre's persistent rhetorical device of distancing his publication from all and any "mistakes" made by the press in their coverage: errors are made by "all papers," successes and good practice can be attributed to the Mail.

So the Mail's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann becomes a story about the Evening Standard, skimming over the Mail's own part in the settlement paid to Robert Murat. The McCann's error was also apparently in not complaining to the Press Complaints Commission rapidly enough (which is a rather curious argument for a man who believes in the self-moderation of an ethical press). He's also stumped when asked whether disclosing the location of one of Joseph Fritzl's daughters - attempting to lead a normal life under a new name - was moral and ethical.

Almost hilariously (if it wasn't also tragic) Dacre claims that the main incentive to avoid being called before the PCC is the "shame" that newspaper editors experience in front of their peers in the industry: indeed, this is the strength of self-regulation. "What sickens me," Dacre bemoans, "is the charge that the PCC is not independent."

not that this has anything to do with ego

I've obligingly watched Nadine Dorries' moment in the sun during Wednesday's PMQs: she should be rightly proud that time was taken to extract an apology which she had.. uh.. already received.

There's a lovely pause after she asks her question when everyone's thinking, "That's it?" - and then another pause after Brown has apologised when everyone has realised that it's over and there's a little rush to make some "outrage outrage" noise to cover the fact that the attempt to embarass has fallen entirely flat. Great theatre.

It's also entirely hilarious that an MP with a proven track record of smearing her opponents should have such a thin skin. It's also faintly sickening that she should somehow think this has anything to with support for women's rights, given Dorries' similarly proven track record when it comes to the political sisterhood. In fact, I believe that the phrase "undignified fishwife" springs to mind.

joseph nicolisi and the BBC's "balanced" reporting

A preamble: homosexuality cannot be cured. There is no therapy that can turn gay people straight. No reputable psychological organisation here, in the US (or across most of Europe) supports such pretended therapy, and largely regards it as unethical to even suggest such treatment.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Reparative therapy has been rejected in the US by The National Association of Social Workers, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Counseling Association, and The American Academy of Pediatrics.

Consequently, the ex-gay movement is filled with men and women who are re-gay (including some very high profile "lapses" into homosexuality). Reparative therapy doesn't work, and can instead cause considerable distress and harm.

I'm making that clear up front so it's clear why the BBC's Today programme's choice to give airtime to Joseph Nicolisi - a man who claims, without any evidence, to be able to relieve gay people of their homosexual tendencies - was an embarassing mistake.

By chosing to interview Nicolisi alongside Reverend Sharon Ferguson (chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement) the programme gave the false impression of balance - that there is some general disagreement on this issue which can be explored evenly from both sides. There is not. The belief that homosexuality can be cured is presented almost exclusively by a small number of (primarily religious) social conservatives.

Nicolisi is in London to talk at a conference of conservative figures from the right of the Anglican church. Unmentioned by the BBC or The Telegraph is that Nicolisi is the executive director of NARTH, the "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality."

Amongst NARTH's officers is George Alan Rekers, who - despite NARTH's claim to secular status - has testified in court that the Bible is the infallable word of God and that homosexuality is a sin. NARTH's website also offers a resource list of over seventy theological articles, and maintains - as an organisation - that homosexuality is a mental disorder. NARTH is, as should be clear, a conservative pseduo-religious group on the fringe of medical research and psychiatric practice.

To make it clear, it's fine that Nicolisi should speak, or visit London. Obviously. But the BBC - as an organisation with a claim to journalistic integrity - should know better than to give a public platform to a manifest fraud under the pretence of balanced reporting.

invading privacy for fun and profit

Apparently, behaving like a teenager when you are a teenager stops you from behaving like an adult when you are an adult. A teacher enforces the rules of her school and sends pupils home, and the Mail's snide response is to opine:

She did not, however, explain why she was so lax about her own attire when she at Cowes High School on the Isle of Wight in 1989.

So lovely for Neil Sears of the Daily Mail to assist in the invasion of a woman's privacy through the bullshit pretence of hypocrisy. Perhaps it was the chance to pruriently report "in one photograph she boasts about the size of her ample breasts" that made it justifiable to print photographs of a woman from 20 years ago to hound her professional behaviour today.

Finally, just to make it clear how unbelievably fucking stupid this story is, here's the SHOCK photo showing this teacher's schoolgirl scruffiness:

Truly, a schoolgirl in a shirt and tie will be the end of decorum everywhere. Neil Sears: collossal wanker of the week.

ZOMG news

Yesterday's budget seems to have tripped some kind of internal switch at the Daily Telegraph. First, there's the front-page headline:


Quickly, comrades! To the barricades! I get the feeling that headline has been held in reserve since 1997.

And then there's this story:

Brown denies Budget spells the end of New Labour

PM denies the new 50p top rate of tax sounds the death knell for New Labour and insists the party remains committed to aspiration and opportunity for all.

Of all the possible journalistic approaches to take on this story, reporting that the head of a political party refuses to declare that his party is doomed is the least insightful or revelatory - particularly when that's the argument being advanced by their direct political rivals.

Report the argument, fine, but act surprised that Brown doesn't agree with Cameron? What other scoops can we look forward to? Pope refuses to admit demise of organised religion?

on the purity patrol

Given the BNP's renewed fondness for racial purity, I'm wondering where the party would stand on one-drop legislation. Presumably anything less than full support for such a measure would be to condone a "bloodless genocide."

I think we've pretty much abandoned the pretence that this discussion can ever be about cultural values when Nick Griffin's objection is to someone's genetic "stock," and thinks that "racial foreigners" is a more subtle way of objecting to who his predecessors would have called "darkies." More importantly, all that word play frees the BNP from having to define what Britishness is without referring to whiteness.

Nick Griffin's rhetoric also articulates a common (and alogical) position: that having someone use a term to define themselves stops me from using that same term to truly describe myself. In other words, gay marriage invalidates straight marriage, and the term Asian Britains "denie[s] indigenous people their own identity." This theory is, as many speech-act theorists before me have opined, balls: language (and law, and culture) doesn't work that way.

If you have a strong stomach, dip into the comment section over there for the Mail readers' angry defence of Griffin from the forces of political correctness.

a tale of two headlines

Sometimes spin falls on deaf ears. From today's papers, pre-budget:


The Guardian: "The gravy train must stop: PM orders expenses shakeup," versus The Daily Express: "Greedy MP's New Rip-Off."

tut tut tut

The Met Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, leading the investigation into police tactics during G20 in London:

Sir Paul said it was "absolutely unacceptable" that some officers covered or removed their identity shoulder tags during the protests.[...]

Mr O'Connor admitted that seeing images of protester Nicola Fisher being struck across the face by an officer made him "very uncomfortable". He added: "I would expect police officers in public order and other situations to wear their numbers so the public can identify them. It acts as a good check and balance for all parties in the situation."

But, as Simon Carr points out:

[Sir Paul] was livelier on the need for officers to wear their identifying police numbers. But he revealed the numbers were attached by velcro. So forget any disciplinary action on that score. "It must have got ripped off by anarchists," they'll all say. No one asked about balaclava wearing.

Once again, it's not so much anti-police sentiment as the sensation of impending, horribly accurate cynicism. Odds on Sir Paul's "expectations" being sadly frustrated?

manners

A lesson in writing whatever article you want, regardless of what a piece of research might discover. From the top:

1. The headline and lede.

Excuse ME! How most people believe manners are unimportant in 21st century Britain

They say that good manners cost nothing. So you'd think that even in these credit-crunch times, we could still afford to be polite.

Apparently not. For researchers have found that fewer than a quarter of us think that common courtesy is important today.

Ten points for noticing that disagreeing with the statement "During a credit crunch, manners are important" is not actually the same as saying that manners are unimportant.

2. The more detailed findings of the survey commissioned by a bank on attitudes toward courtesy and happiness, reported further down the page:

Almost one in ten sometimes forget to say 'please' and 'thank you' - and one in 50 said they had 'too much on their minds to worry about other people's feelings'.

In other words, the vast majority of those surveyed still exercise common forms of social courtesy. Here's the Telegraph doing the exact same thing with the story i.e. failing to read past the first result before deciding on the contents of the story.

3. The original press release:

Despite the economic downturn and the widely held perception that manners and courtesy have declined, Britain seems to be seeing a renewed appreciation for courtesy and consideration.

A new poll has revealed that nine out of ten adults believe it’s common, everyday niceties such as a compliment or being given a seat that make us happy.

But apart from that, everything is going to hell in a handbasket etc. etc.

"If anyone ever deserved a good slap, this woman certainly did."

From the asshat files, here's Bill Carmichael of the Yorkshire Post, arguing that complaining angrily (even abusively) about being detained by police without charge is the grounds for being assaulted by the police:

Take a few moments to look at the video and a strikingly different picture emerges from the propaganda being put out by the protesters and their friends at the BBC and left-wing newspapers.

Instead of the sanitised version of injured innocence, what you'll see is an aggressive-looking young woman – as yet unidentified – hat pulled down over her eyes, mouthing obscenities into the face of a police officer, who is trying to ignore her.

After several minutes of this he snaps and slaps her with the back of his hand with the words: "Go away."

She doesn't and she continues to hurl abuse. At which point he draws his baton and belts her on the legs. If anyone ever deserved a good slap, this woman certainly did.

Instead of being suspended and investigated, I believe the officer involved should be commended for his forbearance.

It's those last few lines which frame the misogyny of the piece: that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, to hit a "mouthy" woman. And then strike her with a weapon.

boris johnson: woefully inadequate

Justin McKeating and Tory Troll pick up on the story that Boris Johnson has dumped his election promise to fund four new rape crisis centres in London.

The rationale appears to be that Johnson knows less now than he did before he took office many months ago and promised in his manifesto to ring-fence cash to correct "woefully inadequate funding."

The Evening Standard quotes his revised position:

"The Mayor is determined that all women in London who need them have access to rape crisis services. To do this he first needs to know where the gaps in service provision are and where to focus funding.

He is consulting widely with partners, organisations and Londoners through his Violence Against Women Strategy as well as carrying out a thorough needs assessment. Once both these results are available he and his team will be able to identify the best places to direct funding for rape crisis provision.”

This would be a reasonable and rational response if the answers to such enquiries were not already screamingly self-evident. i.e. Q. Where are the gaps in funding? A. In funding for rape crisis centres.

Why would Boris be particularly well placed to know that, even if amnesia has robbed him of his pre-election memories? He cut his promised funding for rape crisis centres in December 2008.

Finally, note the horribly ironic detail that this news came out during the launch of a strategy to cut violence against women.

it's the internet, stupid

Someone phone for a police wahmbulance:

A worrying anti-police “bandwagon” has built up over the handling of the G20 protests, the leader of rank-and-file officers told The Times last night.

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said that much of the criticism by politicians and media commentators was inaccurate, ill informed and ignorant.

McKeever's protest would be a lot more compelling (i.e. a little bit instead of not at all) if he could point to exactly when and where commentary and criticism based on misinformation had taken place. Some kind of evidence-based process for supporting charges, if you will. And the bandwagon isn't anti-police so much as anti-"getting smacked in the face by balaclava'd police who refuse to identify themselves."

More significantly, McKeever's critique of the political and press circus also demonstrates a worrying ignorance of the source of public information (and anger). The Guardian has a collection of 14 separate videos of violent or questionable police action, with further fresh footage to be revealed to MPs today. The youtube hosted video of Ian Tomlinson's assault alone now has over 300,000 hits.

I'd argue that the public's response isn't being driven by newspaper commentary and political speechs so much as access to clear and seemingly obvious evidence of police malpractice which has previously either been ignored by the mainstream press or beyond the reach of a mainstream audience. The behaviour of police at public protests isn't new: the rapid and systematic distribution of evidence of that behaviour is.

McKeever's real problem (beyond police officers who see protestors as the enemy) isn't Fleet Street, or Westminster: it's the internet.

daily mail campaigns for and against HPV vaccine simultaneously

Even after many months of tracking the Daily Mail's unique brand of hackery, this story is almost unbelievable. The Daily Mail has been campaigning both for AND against the HPV vaccine in different countries simultaneously.

While the UK mainland edition of the paper has repeatedly scaremongered about possible side-effects, the Irish edition of the Mail is proudly "leading the fight to have the cervical cancer vaccination programme reinstated" after government cost-cutting measures.

If you sign up to support the campaign, you even get a free car sticker:


Credit goes to Martin Robbins at The Lay Scientist for making the discovery:

Are they insane?! They're printing scare stores about the dangers of the HPV vaccine in one country, while simultaneously campaigning for its reintroduction in another. It's so absurdly cynical that I can't quite form the words to convey just how shocked I am by this. Even by the piss-poor journalistic standards of the Daily Mail, this takes quite some beating.

What this means is that those of us who believed that the Daily Mail had some editorial or ideological stance against certain vaccines were in fact wrong. The Daily Mail position on vaccines is whatever happens to sell newspapers - and if those positions are completely self-contradictory, or might cause a bit more cancer in the readership, then who cares, as long as the advertisers are happy?

The closest hint of this level of hypocrisy in the past was when the Mail reported that the government's failure to issue formal guidance on the Gardasil vaccine was forcing mothers to pay to have their daughters vaccinated privately. That story, though, was a rare moment that approached sanity.

Long term readers will know that The Daily Mail has persistently campaigned against the HPV vaccine: continually referring to the vaccine as the "promiscuity jab," over-emphasising possible risks and - until now most notoriously - giving space to socially conservative moralists who prefer cancer to sex, confuse vaccination with "promoting" underage sex, and think that women who seek protection from cervical cancer are tarts and slags.

Given that the Mail is clearly missing out on a chance for some self-promotional moral posturing, I've taken the liberty of producing a car sticker for Mail readers in the mainland UK:

Or, alternatively:

Not too subtle, I hope.

hypocrisy schadenfreude tango

Shorter Nadine Dorries: it is utterly disgraceful that anyone should attempt to smear their political opponents with entirely false.. oh, wait, never mind.

Also see: slander is not the same thing as libel.

weak from laughter

Shorter Derek Draper: at the end of the day - and in our own individual ways - we've all been responsible for planning websites which would trade in tawdry gossip and smears.

I believe it's traditional to wear the sackcloth and ashes for at least a few hours before proceeding to sainthood:

Maybe this affair will encourage the whole blogosphere, right and left, to commit to a new start, where offensiveness and personal attacks are avoided and debate is elevated not dragged down into the gutter? Maybe this can be a turning point at which we all redouble our efforts to tap into the internet´s positive potential rather than allowing its more peurile aspects to come to the fore?

shouted the man in the gutter.