Celebrity Boobs And Party Poopers

[joggerjayne]

The Daily Mail seems determined to spoil everbody's fun ...

(see Lacrosse team initiation thread).

Except the fun, it seems, of it's dirty pervert readers.

Thousands of miles away, in Los Angeles, Rihanna goes out for the evening in a skimpy top, and no bra.

Surely no raggy tabloid would try to pass that off as a "News" item, just so that they could publich a photo (sorry, THREE photos (!)) of Rihanna's boobs?

Oh yes they would !!!

Step up to the plate The Daily Pervert (surely "Mail"? Ed)

Presumably the male readers who pop off to the loo for ten minutes with the pictures of Rihanna's boobs are the same ones who are up in arms when the Lacrosse team dress up in nappies.

Aaaah, hang on ... it's all becoming clear ... Daily Mail readers are annoyed because they would have preferred the Lacrosse team to NOT wear the nappies!!! ... then the pervy Mail would have published even MORE photos!

[joggerjayne]

Forgot the link ...

http://www.dailymail....-bra-parties-top.html

[tonyav]

Nothing wrong with looking at Rihanna's t!ts imo.

[ChuckFickens]

Well that was a bit of a let down!

[anotheoldgit]

joggerjayne

What trouble some people will go through to have yet another boring jab at the Mail.

/// Surely no raggy tabloid would try to pass that off as a "News" item, ///

Then why did you bother to pass it off as a news item?

Stop cluttering up the 'News Section' with this silliness.

[joggerjayne]

No, but the Mail describes it as "sheer exhibitionism" ...

... and then prints three photos !!

"We strongly disapprove of such exhibitionism.

Here's a photo, to show you how much you should also disapprove.

And another photo.

And yet another photo, where we got a really good pokie shot of one of Rihanna's boobs, so that we can disapprove even more."

LOL

[joggerjayne]

"Then why did you bother to pass it off as a news item? "

Because the Daily Mail turned it into one??

I didn't have to go to much length to have a dig at the Mail. I just clicked the link on the same web page as my Lacrosse item.

The Mail, on the other hand, had to go to ENORMOUS lengths to track down the details for its story about the Lacrosse team.

The rule seems to be ...

People have fun in private (the Lacrosse team's initiation, Rihanna's night out) ... the Mail gets hold of it, make it public, and tells everyone to be outraged.

Well, nobody would be outraged, or even bothered, if the Mail did not go to such lengths to try to create such outrage.

And that, dearest AOG, is why I have a pop at them.

And that is, of course, only a pop at the Mail ... not at you ... because you are very jolly (for a Mail reader, LOL) and I do enjoy your regular News posts.

[bibblebub]

yes joggerjayne how dare you post silliness on the EDL noticeboard

[EvianBaby]

In fairness, it's not in their News section. It's in TV and Showbiz.

[jomifl]

Err, well I guess I'll have to take their word for it (about the bra, or lack thereof). All I could see was an average looking woman wearing clothes. I think my super x-ray vision powers must be declining with age.

[jno]

this is the thing about Mail Online - it's much more constructed around pictures than either of the newspapers. No pictures, no story (it's like TV in that respect). If a pap produces photos of someone famous, they'll try to create a story around it. It's possible they didn't even realise at first that R's top was see-through (and darned if I can see through it myself but my old eyes are not that sharp); if it hadn't been, they'd have just printed some other non-news garbage with the photos instead - as per the other "stories" down the right of the page.

But underwear of the rich and famous... it is a bit sleazy, isn't it.

[d9f1c7]

who is "Rihanna"? what does she do? why are the DM interested?

[joggerjayne]

Actually, EB is right ... it is in their Showbiz section

(which should be renamed the "how many celebrity nipple photos can we find for our readers today?" section)

[jno]

Mail Online is the *world's* most popular newspaper website - nearly 100 million users a month.

http://www.guardian.c...00m-users?INTCMP=SRCH

That's why they do it. They don't care if d9 has never heard of her, they know that millions of people worldwide - not just British - have.

[EvianBaby]

Actually Jno, that's what annoys me more - the amount of American related stories they have.

[joggerjayne]

That statistic about 100m users came from The Guardian ...

So it is, at least, probably true.

[jno]

that's the internet for you, EB - it's not local. The Mail has deliberately gone worldwide, and has been hugely successful. The Mail newspapers are big sellers in Britain but not by international standards. Their website covers the planet, however. A true British success story... for better or worse.

[joggerjayne]

I think it's good. I'm all for British success stories.

[Kromovaracun]

Actually, I think JJ's criticism is a valid one. One is reminded of the utterly hypocritical reaction of the Mail and Express to Brass Eye's 2001 paedophilia special - declaring it 'sick' while on the next page brandishing bikini photos of Princess Beatrice and Eugene (who were respectively aged 13 and 11):

http://www.guardian.c...2001/aug/05/news.film

[sp1814]

The Mail opens itself up to criticism because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing (can we all please be adult and not post the obvious double entendre here).

There have been occasions where the Mail (online) has led with stories denouncing the sexualisation of teens, and in the byline on the right, have published links to 'Kim Kardashians' sexy beach body', 'nude shots of Kerry Katona', 'Mark 'TOWIE' White nude on I'm A Celebrity'.

[anotheoldgit]

To be fair, 'Mail on Line' has thirteen different sections, each which break down into numerous sub-headings.

You make your choice when you pick one, no one forces you, just as no on forces you to read the Mail.

The poster chose to post a Mail link and then she also chose the the TV & Showbiz section, so she shouldn't have been surprised at the content, just the same as if she had chosen to read a gossip magazine such as OK.

All this forced indignation is about the same as myself picking the 'Femail' section, and then entering a thread complaining why the Mail is obsessed about Female issues.