How it Works2 mins ago
A Classic 'non-Story' - Even By The Mail's Standards!
27 Answers
http://
When you unpick the details from this report, it is clear that a passenger and his family were re-seated to comply with the airline's seating regulations, and the fact that the other party involved included Coleen Rooney is a complete coincidence.
It may be that a member of the cabin crew was indiscreet enough to infer that Mrs Rooney took seats on the basis that she is a 'celebrity', but it is quite clear that Mrs Rooney was unaware of the change in seating, and rightly took exception to being ridiculed on social media.
The other passenger who complained, on being made aware of the true facts, has apologised to Mrs Rooney via social media.
So - you have to wonder why the Mail on-line gave quite so much space to this nonsensical non-story, including endless pictures of everyone involved, but then the answer is clear.
The whole piece is an advert so that readers can purchase the outfit worn by Mrs Rooney shown on photos taken at a different time, completely unconnected with the story.
And this is what passes for 'journalism' by the Mail's on-line editors.
When you unpick the details from this report, it is clear that a passenger and his family were re-seated to comply with the airline's seating regulations, and the fact that the other party involved included Coleen Rooney is a complete coincidence.
It may be that a member of the cabin crew was indiscreet enough to infer that Mrs Rooney took seats on the basis that she is a 'celebrity', but it is quite clear that Mrs Rooney was unaware of the change in seating, and rightly took exception to being ridiculed on social media.
The other passenger who complained, on being made aware of the true facts, has apologised to Mrs Rooney via social media.
So - you have to wonder why the Mail on-line gave quite so much space to this nonsensical non-story, including endless pictures of everyone involved, but then the answer is clear.
The whole piece is an advert so that readers can purchase the outfit worn by Mrs Rooney shown on photos taken at a different time, completely unconnected with the story.
And this is what passes for 'journalism' by the Mail's on-line editors.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Zacs-Master - // It’s either news or it isn’t, Andy. Make your mind up. //
That is my entire point.
This 'story' is printed on a national daily newspaper's on-line site, and it is clearly nothing approaching 'news' at all, merely a puff-piece to frame an advert for a clothing manufacturer.
It is the Daily Mail, rather than I, that needs to assess what being a 'newspaper' actually means.
That is my entire point.
This 'story' is printed on a national daily newspaper's on-line site, and it is clearly nothing approaching 'news' at all, merely a puff-piece to frame an advert for a clothing manufacturer.
It is the Daily Mail, rather than I, that needs to assess what being a 'newspaper' actually means.
This 'NEWS' story was covered by other news outlets.
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Still take delivery of the Mail, do you?
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Still take delivery of the Mail, do you?
AOG - // This 'NEWS' story was covered by other news outlets. //
That is not actually relevant to the point I am making.
In the first place, this is not 'news'.
For it to be what passes for 'news' in our celebrity-obsessed culture, the facts would need to be as they were slanted - that Mrs Rooney and party had a family kicked out of their seats so they could have them, and this being acceptable on the basis that Mrs Rooney is a 'celebrity'.
But the facts are entirely different - the airline re-seated the passengers to comply with its own safety regulations, and Mrs Roony not only had no input into the re-seating of the other passengers, she was competely unaware of it.
And the thrust of my point is that the Mail on-line used this nonsense purely as a puff piece to hang an advert on, and that is a sad indictment of a major newspaper's editorial approach to news.
That is not actually relevant to the point I am making.
In the first place, this is not 'news'.
For it to be what passes for 'news' in our celebrity-obsessed culture, the facts would need to be as they were slanted - that Mrs Rooney and party had a family kicked out of their seats so they could have them, and this being acceptable on the basis that Mrs Rooney is a 'celebrity'.
But the facts are entirely different - the airline re-seated the passengers to comply with its own safety regulations, and Mrs Roony not only had no input into the re-seating of the other passengers, she was competely unaware of it.
And the thrust of my point is that the Mail on-line used this nonsense purely as a puff piece to hang an advert on, and that is a sad indictment of a major newspaper's editorial approach to news.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.