The Daily Mail & Stephen Gately

[fredv3b]

I really think that The Daily Mail has sunk to a new low with this article.

I am absolutely appalled by this. Jan Moir in an opinion piece on the death of Stephen Gately has unilaterally decided that his death was unatural, despite the post mortem report, not that she sees any need to justify her assertion. She then goes on to link his death to being gay, and make an attack on civil partnerships.

I am on record, here on GS, as being very strongly in favour of free speech, but this is real abuse of that precious right. She is entitled to her opinions about homosexuality and to share them but to use someone's death to bolster her position without any evidence whatsoever is just unacceptable.

I'd like to know who in the Mail's editorial team approved such an article?

[Lake]

I knew the newspapers were going to have a field day with this one.
My thoughts and prayers are with Stephen's family and friends.

[sox-and-the-city]

Did you really expect any better??

Am loving reading the comments after, and seeing the widely varied group of people uniting in their disgust at what is a completely outrageous article.

[CardShark]

Good publicity for daily mail.

[fredv3b]

Good publicity for daily mail.

I honestly believe that these days there is such a thing as bad publicity.

[kitschcamp]

What I think is most interesting about this, though, is that it's *one* paper that is making such comments.

Just go back 10 years and it would have been altogether different. I remember all too well the days of the red tops outing celebrities for their "perverse" and "sleazy" lifestyles. As I was going to the airport yesterday I noticed the red tops were universally supportive of Gately and today all seem to be condemning The Daily Mail.

That is quite some progress. Strange as it seems, the bad actions of one paper has possibly helped galvanise people into making a stand and saying it's not right.

[marshlander]

When someone we love dies, we don't always act rationally. When a celebrity we think we know dies prejudice feeds on the emotive responses generated and spreads rapidly. Somewhere in amongst the muddle are those who are left to grieve and others who find ways to make money from grief. Many others get caught up and dragged along with the flood. What was the publicity about the rest of Boyzone catching the next flight to Spain all about? :confused:

I'm not familiar enough with Jan Moir's work to know whether this is a regular hobby horse of hers, but the outcry her mean-spirited article has generated borders on the hysterical.

In these times when so-called celebrities are deemed public property everyone has an opinion and often feels obliged to express it. So far, the column has resulted in a storm of outrage, the removal of advertising from the proximity of the online article and a response by Jan Moir who explains how we all misunderstood her and failed to read what she wrote.

The coroner's verdict was that the death was from natural causes. Twelve young people per week die unexpectedly from hitherto undiagnosed heart defects. I hope that Stephen Gately's death will promote awareness of this sad statistic. A columnist is paid to be provocative. I think that what Ms Moir wrote was mean and full of bile, but surely it is her editor who has hung her out to dry?

In the meantime another young celebrity dies and is denied a dignified exit, while untold numbers, who die daily from the both deliberate actions and the neglect of others, remain unheralded and with few lessons learned. What a world :redface:

[Mark]

Papers will always produce articles to get peoples backs up - at the end of the day everyone talks about it and that's their aim.

[Boysstuff]

The great Brittish press, full of garbage, sadly I think the worst is still to
come.:frown:

[fredv3b]

Marshy,

My complaint was not so much as what she said about Gately, I agree that someone who has through their career made money through publicity is, these days, public property. My complaint was what she was saying about us, using his death without a shred of evidence for her assertions.

I'm not familiar enough with Jan Moir's work to know whether this is a regular hobby horse of hers, but the outcry her mean-spirited article has generated borders on the hysterical.

I believe she was the first 'victim' of a Twitter based storm, now termed a 'Twirlwind'.

So far, the column has resulted in a storm of outrage, the removal of advertising from the proximity of the online article and a response by Jan Moir who explains how we all misunderstood her and failed to read what she wrote.

I haven't seen her response but I for one did read what she wrote, many complaints would have been from those who haven't but many would have been from those who have, its not difficult to read it for yourself once you have been told about it.

A columnist is paid to be provocative. I think that what Ms Moir wrote was mean and full of bile, but surely it is her editor who has hung her out to dry?

There is a line and Moir clearly crossed it. She wrote the article, her name is attached to it, she should not be surprised to be the target of the responding vitriol. However the un-named editor that approved the piece has equal culpability, but will sadly likely weather the storm.