The Daily Bash

  • Home
  • What exactly is The Daily Bash about?
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Horror Vs Terror

January 21, 2017 by charlottelockeridge 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?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: BACOM, Daily Mail, horror, Islamophobia, Terror, The Daily Bash, The Sun

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

December 15, 2016 by charlottelockeridge 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.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: BACOM, Daily Mail, Feminism, Male gaze

Recent Posts

  • #STOPFUNDINGHATE
  • Appearance matters – The Mail Online forget what’s important
  • Horror Vs Terror
  • Innocent or Guilty? – The Mail Online continues to confuse us yet again
  • Women are capable of running a successful business, aren’t they?

Archives

  • January 2017
  • December 2016

Copyright © 2025 · eleven40 Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in