Amanda Palmer Responds To The Daily Mail

[Kromovaracun]

WARNING: NUDITY AND THINGS IF THAT BOTHERS YOU.

So, in typical style for the up-market rag that it is (giggle), the Daily Mail chose to highlight a "malfunction" of Amanda Palmer's bra during her performance at Glastonbury. You can see it here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2351373/Making-boob-Amanda-Palmers-breast-escapes-bra-performs-stage-Glastonbury.html


Palmer has given a hilarious response to the Mail, which you can view here:



At risk of stating the blindingly obvious, doesn't this highlight the Mail's hypocrisy? And its shallow and rather self-righteous approach to journalism? Wouldn't we be better off without this putrid rag?

[Kromovaracun]

Oh, and also the Mail's recent utterly sensationalised "campaign" against internet porn:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139275/Internet-porn-PM-steps-safeguard-children-saying-Government-discuss-opt-in.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132342/How-internet-porn-turned-beautiful-boy-hollow-self-hating-shell.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134148/Google-says-parents-blame-children-view-porn-Online-giant-attacks-legal-curbs.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135835/Online-porn-Now-Labour-joins-battle-opt-adult-material.html

Notice the Mail launches this campaign posing itself as the 'guardian' of young children on the internet, and yet in its TV and showbiz section is willing to publish items constantly which violate their own standards.

Plus as an aside to all this, there's the nasty habit that the Mail Online has of removing or editing articles that are criticised. So they are cowards as well as hypocrites.

[joggerjayne]

I think Amanda Palmer's song was really funny, and quite clever.

And justified, because Amanda was personally affronted by the Mail's reporting ... "we don't care about your music, but we have a photo of your nipple"

But, for the rest of us, the Mail is not a serious newspaper. It's just a light hearted tabloid. It doesn't do "issues". So I don't think the rest of us need to get agitated about it.

[jno]

unfair, JJ, the Mail does issues all the time, that's what all its columnists are for. The problem as Kromovaracun suggests is its wildly hypocritical stance(s), exploiting what it purports to condemn.

[beattie819]

Well said JJ!

[joggerjayne]

Well, yes, jno ... but it doesn't really "do" issues.

It pays lip service to issues while,mat the same time, continually showing that it has no real sincerity about those issues.

I don't care. I'm not bothered, because I know there is a market for it. It's reassuring to read a page called Women's Mail or whatever, even when the rest of the paper is devoted to "phwooar, look, Qmanda Palmer's got her nipple out, and here's an actress in a bikini, and waa heey, guess who flashed her privates getting out of a limousine"

It's even better if you can pretend that you are printing the pictures because you disapprove of them, lol. "This is awful. Nudity? Disgraceful. Our readers will be shocked. So here are lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of pictures, for our readers to disapprove of."

It's harmless. But we shouldn't take them seriously.

[DTCwordfan]

The Mail, serious.........don't make me laugh.

It's pure proaganda that keeps the likes of AOG in touch with mental masturbation as adequately demonstrated on this fine site.

In short, it's dangerous.

[joggerjayne]

I don't think it's dangerous. It's pretty harmless.

[DTCwordfan]

What - the EDL Wail & Times is not dangerous.........?

[FredPuli43]

It's not hypocritical of the Mail to complain about sexual content in programmes before the watershed. But to pretend that its readers will be offended by nudity, being topless, or too much cleavage whilst presenting the story with numerous large photographs, or a video, of the offending scene, is hypocritical. Do they not protect their own modesty by using stars or pixillating a tiny part of the breast, or is that some other tabloid?

[joggerjayne]

No stars or pixelation. Just a "hilarious" headline about Amanda "making a boob of herself" ... geddit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2351373/Making-boob-Amanda-Palmers-breast-escapes-bra-performs-stage-Glastonbury.html

Oh, and err ... in their excitement about having another nipple to show their readers, they forgot to review the actual music.

[Ann]

Well I thought it was all quite amusing, and the song very clever, reminded me of Victoria Wood.

[jno]

well, I meant that they do discuss issues rather than campaigning on them. They do campaign sometimes and sometimes they even get it right (eg Stephen Lawrence's death), though that's pretty rare.

[joggerjayne]

Victoria Wood ... Amanda Palmer? ... okay, why not. :0)

>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lBQ9N-5XYI

[FredPuli43]

Oh, yes JJ, not even a flash photograph! But we are informed that this woman is bisexual, which may be the Mail's idea of reviewing the performance. Perhaps there is bi-music, like there is garage, bebop, stride, rap, and all the rest? If not, why is the Mail informing us of this fact? Perhaps it's meant to be ....er...titillating?

[joggerjayne]

I'm not sure why the Mail would choose to throw "she's bisexual" into the article.

She's married to the novelist Neil Gaiman. Her sexuality is only relevant if you're a Mail journo.

So the Mail sends you to do a review of Amanda Palmer in concert at Glastonbury. You come back with ...

1. A photo of her tit.

2. The fact that she has had bisexual relationships.

3. Nothing whatsoever about the music.

LOL ... music journalism, Daily Mail style..

You see, that's why no one could ever take the Daily Mail seriously.

[LazyGun]

@Kromovaracun - Not sure if you follow your own posts, but I thought you might be interested to know that Amanda has appeared on Newsnight tonight (22/07/2013) to talk about that DM story, her music, and her thoughts on music, art, and the way the music industry is coming to terms with the new digital age.

Very interesting interview and she impresses as a highly engaging,humerous, intelligent and confident woman.

Not sure if you have access to the BBC iplayer or not, but you might want to watch it if you can....