Fun Daily Mail Quiz!

[sp1814]

The Mail Online has reported that a "topless Kim Kardashian" has made a "shockingly gratuitous" music video including a "nip slip".

How many pictures of this "shockingly gratuitous" video do you think they have included in their article?

A. None of course! Because it's "shockingly gratuitous".
B. One, begrudgingly, in order to give readers some necessary context.
C. 25 screengrabs and two video clips

(With thanks to The Media Blog).

On a more serious note - should a family news site, which is campaigning against online porn, make such shockingly gratuitous material freely available to it's readers.

[mushroom25]

probably no more than a "family restaurant" should play explicit rap music to its customers, with lyrics so shocking that the paper can't even quote them...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510673/McDonalds-apologises-grandfather-playing-pornographic-rap-song-anal-rape-age-sex.html

[sp1814]

mushroom25

Yeah...I heard about that.

A member of staff left their mp3 player plugged into the sound system over night.

I'm almost certain that McD's doesn't feature hardcore rap in it's playlist.

You're more likely to hear Mandy Moore, than Macklemore at at McDonalds.

[jno]

I'm chiefly outraged that you haven't included a link. I shall have to await aog's thread on the subject, though he's getting forgetful about links too.

[sp1814]

jno

Here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2509994/Kanye-West-naked-Kim-Kardashian-simulate-sex-Bound-2-video.html

Prepare to be outraged.

[jno]

by golly, they're right, that is quite some shockingly gratuitous postnatal weight loss. I am grateful to you for bringing it to my attention.

[ludwig]

Is the answer c) ?

Actually the thing that's most depressing is that they can make a video like that in the first place. They're an engaged couple simulating themselves having sex for the world at large. I'm pretty sure they don't need the money, so What The Funicular?

[youngmafbog]

I have to say, that in this day and age what exactly is the problem?

[FredPuli43]

Don't see any problem nowadays, youngmafbog. Don't what time they were showing it, but the American broadcaster put it out (is Ellen, Ellen deGeneris ?). Americans are rather more prudish than we are; remember the fuss about the 'wardrobe malfunction' in that Super Bowl?

What's amusing is the paper's description , "shockingly gratuitous", suggesting that its readers should be shocked, whilst going on to give some many pictures and , as a bonus, video clips, so its readers can be properly "shocked".

[anotheoldgit]

This is not news it is just yet another boring anti Daily Mail rant, seeing that it under TV & Show Business it is only for those interested in such matters.

But having a look at some of the pictures I would have thought you would have been pleased that it showed racial integration, would you have been more happy if it suited your own sexual orientation a little more?

[sp1814]

AOG

So...you went straight to the story, without making a guess first?

That's cheating.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// I'm chiefly outraged that you haven't included a link. I shall have to await aog's thread on the subject, though he's getting forgetful about links too. ///

Why did you find it necessary to take this opportunity to have yet another cheap dig at me?

[FredPuli43]

Have you noticed the sidebar of the Mail online, AOG ? It is all about celebrities and showbiz. And how many of its readers are interested in TV soaps and dramas generally and would be interested in news about TV programmes, over and above mere listings? The Mail must know and therefore gives these matters great prominence. The paper is not just the news, though the readers will want that too, it is far more than that. "Only for those interested" may exclude you, but 'only' represents a very large number, judged only from the above.

Now, would you have found the images "shockingly gratuitous" ? Do you think that the readers of the section would? If they wouldn't, what was the point of the words? If they would, why publish the images in such abundance or at all?

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// The paper is not just the news, ///

No but this is Answerbank's 'NEWS' section, and unless you have not noticed AnswerBank has it's own 'MEDIA & TV' section which also contains a sub section called 'CELEBRITY GOSSIP', a more fitting destination for this thread, don't you think?

[mushroom25]

//I'm almost certain that McD's doesn't feature hardcore rap in it's playlist.//

shame. for a fleeting moment, I thought "wow! these guys really know their stuff...."

[Zeuhl]

/'CELEBRITY GOSSIP', a more fitting destination for this thread, don't you think? /

No

Only for someone who can't understand the OP Question

/should a family news site, which is campaigning against online porn, make such shockingly gratuitous material freely available to it's readers.?/

So sp1814's question was about the integrity of the Daily Mail, not the subject matter

Therefore AB 'News' is entirely appropriate and aog is scraping the bottom of a poorly constructed barrel

[jno]

aog, you may have missed the slight hint of a tongue in my cheek.

[FredPuli43]

Do you mean,AOG, that had this been posted under Media and TV, you would not have commented because it would not have fallen within your areas of interest ?

It is justifiably in News because it is a comment about the standards and journalism of the Daily Mail, a national newspaper and, as a bonus, newspaper standards and journalism have been much in the news of late, and are currently under review.

Another, supplementary, reason may be that sp thought that you would respond with a delightful answer, but the first reason is valid nonetheless.
b) there may have bee

[FredPuli43]

Ignore the last line, beginning b) ! Poor editing. I'd never make it as 'sub' !