The Daily Bash

#STOPFUNDINGHATE

by Leave a Comment

In today’s blog post, it’s all about the campaign #stopfundinghate !

I bet you’re wondering what the campaign is all about?

Well, Stop Funding Hate is a campaign which disagrees with discriminating newspaper articles and mediated hate speech published by the likes of tabloid newspapers The Mail Online, The Sun and The Daily Express. The campaign aims to “tackle the culture of hate, demonisation and division that is poisoning our political discourse.”

Stop Funding Hate stand for

“Freedom of speech and freedom of the press”

The campaign wants to persuade advertisers to stop supporting these tabloids and to support the anti-hate campaign.

The campaign also stands for,

“Freedom or choice, Impartiality, Inclusiveness, Consistency and Universality”.

#STOPFUNDINGHATE want to take on the divisive hate campaigns in which newspapers promote!

#STOPFUNDINGHATE urges advertisers to think about where they’re advertising. In a recent campaign strategy, the team behind Stop Funding Hate, created a YouTube video to urge the CO-Operation group to stop advertising with The Daily Express due to the prejudice and hate messages portrayed in their newspaper headlines and articles. Leading this campaign off to a start, Stop Funding Hate stuck with the Co-Op’s own hashtag #TheCoopWay.

So now you know all about it and why we’re so EAGER to get advertisers to stop supporting these hate messages through these tabloid newspapers, why don’t you join with me in the debate!

Follow #stopfundinghate on TWITTER and FACEBOOK and get involved! You can also find Stop Funding Hate on their official website here.
Also, follow me on TWITTER and FACEBOOK too to get up to date with my feed.

Appearance matters – The Mail Online forget what’s important

by Leave a Comment

Yet again, The Mail Online have given me no great pleasure but to criticise their ‘not so worthy’ news story headline.

Meghan Markle at UN Women’s HeForShe Campaign Special Event

Being captured globally in newspaper headlines just for a pretty face, fit bod and iconic fashion sense, it definitely diminishes the successful efforts and accomplishments someone has made. And why is it that females are MAJORLY associated with these stereotypical themes of fashion and body image? Is this seen to be popularly newsworthy for mainstream audiences?

In tonight’s blog post, The Mail Online’s headline which I will be discussing is “Henna to impress Harry? Meghan Markle shows off a traditional Indian inking as she arrives at Mumbai airport after a charity trip”.
Have you noticed it yet? Of course you have. “Henna to impress Harry?” – as you can see here, according to The Mail Online a woman has to ‘dress to “impress”’ a man. Stereotypical enough yet?
Meghan Markle, massively recognised in the media for dating Prince Harry, is now never solely spoken of for being an actress in the American Drama Suits. Below, I have tried to crack down the belittling truth of the headline itself. What do you think the headline tells us?

Playing a role in celebrity culture and living out a successful career and lifestyle, sadly, I find that The Daily Mail have depreciated Meghan Markle’s purpose and achievements, however, they didn’t forget to mention how she “sported temporary henna tattoo on her right hand” and “dress down for her long-haul flight, teaming a black t-shirt with skinny jeans and white trainers”. Despite these statements being least critical, they still prioritise and comment on her appearance first and foremost over the purpose of her trip in Mumbai.

When taking a closer gaze at the numerous amount of images The Mail Online have featured in the article, it is noticed how none of these have particularly accentuated this henna tattoo on her right hand. So what can possibly be so special about it if Meghan Markle is seen wearing it? Meghan Markle acts as a famous fashion guru, providing The Daily Mail’s readership with the idea that her body shape, style and image is to be admired and act as a role model towards anyone.

Due to these idealistic representations of beauty and body image in different form of media, girls AND boys are left to feel vulnerable and begin to generate a low self-esteem over their weight & facial and bodily appearance. According to heartofleadersip.org, due to the influence of media, “7 in 10 girls believe they are not good enough or do not measure up in some way including their looks, performance in school and relationships” (source: www.axs.com/uk).

The Mail Online show no direction whatsoever within their article, whilst providing limited information on Meghan’s five-day trip to Mumbai and what her main aims and efforts were whilst being out there. Being an ambassador for the International Christian charity, “promoting young women’s health and hygiene for the charity World Vision Canada.”, this astonishing work isn’t shone within the article to have any significance.

It is continuously saddening how in today’s society, women are mainly noticed for their emotional and physical state, focusing on relationships and appearance. The Mail Online fail AGAIN to notice how fantastic women are in improving the world, helping out other societies and making social change for the better.

It is time to realise how independent and strong women are, and they have more of a purpose in society.

 

Horror Vs Terror

by Leave a Comment

Branching off from my previous blog post, I have decided to discuss in today’s post how The Mail Online and The Sun approached their news story coverage on the event of a ‘terrifying’ open fire attack in a Spanish supermarket.

When reading both articles, I can’t help but roll my eyes over the fact that both headlined articles imply the attack to be of ‘terror’ and assumes the perpetrator is of an Islamic faith as he supposedly screams “Allahu Akbar”. Already, is this not racially stereotypical enough?

The Mail Online’s headline read “Gunman screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ opens fire in Spanish supermarket while wearing ‘suicide vest’ filled with gasoline and gunpowder” – immediately, despite not using crude terms towards the event or the perpetrator, The Daily Mail allow their readership to make an assumption and categorise the perpetrator through key words within the article, such as “Allahu Akbar”, “suicide vest”, “gasoline” and “gunpowder”. Being a heightened moral panic within society, the major stereotypical assumption made by The Mail Online is that the gunman was committing an act of terror.

Now, when taking a look at The Sun’s headline of this event, “SUPERMARKET HORROR Gunman opens fire in Spanish supermarket while ‘carrying bag filled with petrol and gunpowder’”, a totally different, eye-opening view is pictured of this event. Firstly, in comparison to The Daily Mail’s headline, it can be noticed how there is no clear illustration of what the ‘gunman’ looks like. Further on this point, there happens to be a significant difference in narrative between the two headlines. Whilst The Mail Online deliberately create this terrifying image of a suicide bomber, was the actual reality that the perpetrator was really holding these harmful substances in his bag?

Despite the considerable difference the two tabloids construct within their headlined articles of the event, The Sun, however, had a similar broadcast to The Daily Mail when they first published their article. Mistakenly, The Sun posted online “SUPERMARKET TERROR Gunman ‘screaming Allahu Akbar’ opens fire in Spanish supermarket while ‘carrying bag filled with petrol and gunpowder’”. Directly, The Sun instantly claim this event to be a terror attack, whilst linking to the Islamic faith, stating the perpetrator said “Allahu Akbar”.

Miqdaad Versi, board member of Rights Watch (UK), posted an image on Twitter containing both versions of The Sun’s take on the event. In the image below, Miqdaad Versi heatedly states in his tweet against The Sun’s poor blunder “The Sun corrects false claim of terror attack by gunman shouting Allahu Akbar (actually robbery by Stefan): no recognition/apology for error”. As Miqdaad Versi labels both images, it is clearly shown how The Sun carefully change their wording to recreate a more realistic scene of the event.

Tweet posted by Miqdaad Versi on 13/01/17.

“Actually robbery by Stefan” creates this humorous undertone, proving how ridiculous and daring The Sun and The Mail Online’s headlines actually are. But is it really necessary to go to such an extreme in suggesting the perpetrator was a terrorist? How can these tabloid newspapers be trusted for 24/7 news coverage, when they persistently alter the truth for a what they’d note as a thrill factor?

Innocent or Guilty? – The Mail Online continues to confuse us yet again

by Leave a Comment

The Mail Online are at it again, but what article is in store for today’s blog post?

Today, I will be discussing how The Mail Online bizarrely chose to use ‘moderate’ language in their article on “Mass murderer Anders Breivik plans to use DATING ADVERTS to encourage other right-wing extremists to kill, hearing into his human rights hears”

Straight away as an audience we’re reeled into the shocking alliterative headline through the term “Mass Murderer”, immediately implying Anders Breivik committed a horrific and devastating criminal act. Further on in the headline, the term “ring-wing extremists” also reinforces this moral panic of extremism within society and the large physical danger which comes along with it.

Anders Breivik during his trial after his mass attacks in 2011

Despite this, it all sounds a tad satirical when you read the headline as a whole – “to use DATING ADVERTS to encourage other right-wing extremists to kill” – the capitalisation of the term “dating adverts” and the sentence structure itself, clearly belittles and mocks the devastation this sickening man had committed; killing 77 people in a bomb and shooting rampage in 2011.

Astonishing and dramatic as this event sounds, the lack of negative opinion The Mail Online voices towards this ‘killer’ continues to baffle me. The article majorly focuses on the court hearing Anders Breivik attended due to him suing Skien Prison for breaching the European Convention on Human Rights within his isolation there. The court sided with Anders Breivik, awarding him the payment of 331,000 Kroner (£32,000) from the government. This huge lump sum of money seems far too rewarding for someone who took away 77 lives and is spending life in jail. And still, The Mail Online fail to reiterate that this man is in fact a murderer.

When the article then goes on to describe Anders Breivik’s ‘luxurious lifestyle’ behind bars, “…being held in isolation in a three-cell complex where he can play video games, watch TV and exercise”, this then implicitly diverts the readership away from the sickening crime he had committed, but instead shows a more simplistic, yet innocent side to the murderer where the audience expected to feel remorseful.

Surprisingly, for what seemed like an act of terrorism, The Mail Online chose not to label Anders Breivik as their favourite unpleasant noun ‘terrorist’ despite acknowledging he was under “… the treatment of terrorists and killers”. However, the way in which The Mail Online worded this statement, it is suggestive of Anders Breivik being under inhumanely treatment which he wasn’t deserving of – further supporting his ‘innocent’ pledge.
It is then questioned, if Anders Breivik had Islamic beliefs, would he then have been labelled as a terrorist?

Have The Daily Mail seriously subtly, supported this extremist’s actions?

The Mail Online shows images of Anders Breivik in court throughout the article, further representing him as this powerful man who has proclaimed innocence and justice. Dressed in a smart black suit, clean shaven head and holding a strict stance whilst performing a Nazi salute, Breivik is shown to hold authority within the court room, converting the power roles between him and the police officers and Judge. Extremist ideology is immediately conveyed through these images which may startle the readership, but The Daily Mail don’t seem too bothered by it.

It is now questionable as to what the Daily Mail actually thinks comes under the category of terrorism.

Women are capable of running a successful business, aren’t they?

by Leave a Comment

Today, I will be discussing the Mail Online’s headline “Mothers rule The Apprentice: Lord Sugar set to pick a winner between four women and one man – and three of them are working mums”.
Jumping straight in, can it be noticed how the Mail Online had to mention that three of the contestants in The Apprentice are “working mums”. It’s hard to agree with the Mail Online at times, but yes, in fact, these three contestants are working mums – and with images provided of the three with their families, we can finally trust the Daily Mail’s word for it. Despite this, it is still noticed how these three women, regardless of their hardworking ethic and business success, are still mainly labelled as this nurturing caregiver.

Jessica Cunningham during campaign task week 5
Jessica Cunningham during video shoot task episode 5

In the article, it is mentioned how being separated from their children would be “the most challenging aspect of the competition”. This further expects these women to be sensitive and weak as they lose connections with their family for the competition. Do men and women really differ with their emotions to such a great extent?

Frances Bishop and Grainne McCoy, two of four female contestants left in the running for Alan Sugar’s £250,000 investment, who were also labelled as “working mums” in the Daily Mail’s headline, are further portrayed as family orientated rather than business woman through family pictures placed within the article. This idea of being the woman in the household being a homemaker and a breadwinner is a recent acknowledgement for many homes in the UK; family households are now predominantly seen to contain both partners to work and take care of the home and/ or children. So why is the Mail Online still enforcing this ideology of women being the only nurturer in the household?
Jessica Cunningham is quoted in the article, saying “It’s always hard being the breadwinner, because you have got three people who rely on you”. This persistent picture the Daily Mail are painting is that women are not capable of taking on such a responsibility; it is a man’s job. However, have the Daily Mail forgotten the 1:4 male, female ratio for this week’s Apprentice semi-final? Are we still to believe that men are the only ones who are capable of running a business, earning a living and having a family?
Not only is the stereotypical nurturing characteristic heavily portrayed in this article, but Jessica Cunningham’s image within the article is seen as raunchy and revealing as she wears a black leotard, with flawless skin and voluminous hair. It is questioned in my view what relevance this has towards the article. This being the forefront photo for the article throughout the whole of today signifies to me, the female body is certainly just to be looked at for the readerships pleasure, during in this sexualised attention. It can be viewed that this is seen to be empowering for women, having a good bod whilst running a successful business and making a tonne amount of money – but again, where is the relevance for this?

The Daily Mail have clearly objectified the women’s body and have belittled their ability to have control over their successful businesses. Taking their personal lives out of the context of the article, making them fragile and more family orientated, has been portrayed negatively by the Daily Mail as this interferes with their ‘business’. It is still shocking how they persist through the headline, article and images that women are still to be placed within the home.
How dare these women leave their children with their families for 10 weeks for a fantastic career boost.