Reality TV1 min ago
What A Repulsive Website
What a repulsive website the Daily Mail Online is.
I've just perused its report on the launch of the WE Day UK young people's charity event at Wembley Arena the other day (No, I won't provide a link, that just puts me in the same boat) at which Prince Harry gave a short supporting speech.
The article includes over 20 pictures of Prince Harry's alleged soon-to-be-fiancee in various poses and with a medley of expressions.
How intrusive.
How rude.
How insensitive.
Why are the Royal's close friends put to such unpleasant exposure ?
I've just perused its report on the launch of the WE Day UK young people's charity event at Wembley Arena the other day (No, I won't provide a link, that just puts me in the same boat) at which Prince Harry gave a short supporting speech.
The article includes over 20 pictures of Prince Harry's alleged soon-to-be-fiancee in various poses and with a medley of expressions.
How intrusive.
How rude.
How insensitive.
Why are the Royal's close friends put to such unpleasant exposure ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. 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.
-- answer removed --
Well I'm certainly not going to disagree with your assessment of the Daily Wail's website as 'repulsive' (even though it is the most-visited newspaper site in the world, so some people must like it!). However we live in a 'celebrity culture' and I'd be prepared to bet that Cressida Bonas would have happily paid vast sums of money to have those pictures published, so I can't see how it can be seen as 'unpleasant exposure'.
Rightly or wrongly, little-known charities don't sell newspapers but (so-called) 'celebrities' most definitely do. Here's how the US press saw the story:
http:// www.usa today.c om/stor y/life/ people/ 2014/03 /07/pri nce-har rys-shy -girlfr iend-st eps-out -front- for-fir st-time /617113 7/
If you're looking for a report that actually concentrates on the event, look no further than Harry's own website:
http:// www.pri nceofwa les.gov .uk/new s-and-d iary/pr ince-ha rry-spe aks-we- day-uk- event-e ncourag ing-you ng-peop le-help -others
(You'll note that I omitted the word 'Prince' there. That's because I refuse to recognise the so-called 'Royal' family and I'd happily shoot the lot of them).
Rightly or wrongly, little-known charities don't sell newspapers but (so-called) 'celebrities' most definitely do. Here's how the US press saw the story:
http://
If you're looking for a report that actually concentrates on the event, look no further than Harry's own website:
http://
(You'll note that I omitted the word 'Prince' there. That's because I refuse to recognise the so-called 'Royal' family and I'd happily shoot the lot of them).
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
The kind of people that read the DM must like all this boring tosh about celebrities, otherwise the bl**dy paper wouldn't concentrate on it so much.
Blame the people as well as the paper. Andy Warhol was right. There is a line from a Woody Allen picture that says something like " Gossip...its the new pornography"
Best ignored, and its easy to ignore...read another paper. I would suggest the Guardian of course, but there are others far more worthy than this ghastly rag.
Blame the people as well as the paper. Andy Warhol was right. There is a line from a Woody Allen picture that says something like " Gossip...its the new pornography"
Best ignored, and its easy to ignore...read another paper. I would suggest the Guardian of course, but there are others far more worthy than this ghastly rag.
There was an incident in about 2000 which still illustrates the tone of the Mail's coverage. Basically, Brasseye did their infamous (and brilliant) satire on the media's obsession with paedophiles.
The Mail appointed itself as the leader of a crusade against channel 4 (without having actually watched the programme - very much like they did with Stewart Lee). On the next page, however, the Mail had published some extremely creepy shots of the young Princess Beatrice in her bikini, commenting on how she was 'developing' into a woman.
They're scum, frankly. They represent the worst aspects of British society.
The Mail appointed itself as the leader of a crusade against channel 4 (without having actually watched the programme - very much like they did with Stewart Lee). On the next page, however, the Mail had published some extremely creepy shots of the young Princess Beatrice in her bikini, commenting on how she was 'developing' into a woman.
They're scum, frankly. They represent the worst aspects of British society.
-- answer removed --
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.