I usually moan most here about the Mail. That's only partly because I hate it the most. It's also partly because it has the best searchable website of the tabloids. Where else would you find two versions of the same story that show exactly how exaggerated and distorted one has to be to make it to print?

I do hate it though. I don't like the way it distorts and exaggerates and, well, lies to its readers. And I loathe they way it disguises that as righteous indignation. I feel it insults my intelligence.

But not as much as the Sun does. The Mail might fake outrage by saying something like, 'Now, fury as Councils ban shoes' and if you read the article carefully you'll see that the story isn't about anything happening now, there's no fury and no-one banned shoes.

Reading the Sun, you'll get, 'Look, tits! Shiny! Bingo! Save our shoes! Bikinis, phwooar! Celebrity Shit Yourself star Thingy calls Thinga a Slapper! Poll: Is Thinga a minga?' and your supposed to barely register you've read the nonsense story about shoes. Let alone that it was complete cobblers. (Pun definitely intended).

The website hurts my eyes. I hate the shouty, flashy, shiny, distracting noise of it. I hate the way it slows down my browser with its unneccessary flashiness. I hate the way words get shortened because the paper thinks I'm too thick to understand English. I hate the way they stick up doctored photos of what things might look like if they were different because they think I'm too stupid to imagine it, or too thick to understand what the story means. I mean, for fuck's sake. 'Wayne gets in Roo's who'? I don't need a picture of Wayne Rooney in a top hat and monocle to show me what he might look like if he dressed like a posh person. Posh people don't wear fucking top hats and monocles anyway! What kind of shitty fantasy world from the gorblimey strike a light guv'nor make no mistake not nor nuffin' thirties do they think we live in? They even use the word 'toff' in the caption. Who, anywhere, has said 'toff' since 1937?

By including that picture the paper is saying to its readers, 'Look, you thick spack. People in Who's Who are normally posh and Wayne Rooney isn't. This is what posh people dress like. Wayne Rooney doesn't dress like that because he's not posh. Wouldn't he look silly if he did? You can laugh now.' They might as well just have gone with a picture of Wayne Rooney with his tongue stuffed behind his lip with a caption saying, 'You're too stupid to understand the words. Turn to the pictures of tits, you fucking Benny,' underneath the headline, 'Urrrrlurr! You mong!'

Perhaps most of all, I hate the way the paper pushes stupid propaganda and disguises it as fun. Take the 'Killer Wales armed with bayonet', or this gem from today's edition, 'Your Saddam hangman kit':
To play, simply cut out the bearded mass murderer’s limbs, torso, head and feet and place them near the gallows. Next, choose a phrase about Saddam – we’ve suggested a couple below – and challenge a pal to guess it.
I don't hate it because I think it's sick. I like sick jokes. I hate it because it's rubbish. I hate it because it's a way to try to coerce people into a point of view without actually arguing for it or soliciting it. 'Here's a game and if you don't join in, you're a killjoy leftie and probably a Muslim'. And it's shit! It's just . . . shit!

Look at the report of Saddam's impending execution from yesterday, 'You're well hung now'. Just look at it! Picture of a man in his pants next to some jeering so we don't question the content. Look at the opening sentence:
FREE Iraq rejoiced yesterday after cowardly Saddam Hussein was sentenced to hang for the horror crimes of his past.
Free Iraq? Since when? And check out 'cowardly Saddam' and 'horror crimes'. What the fuck is a horror crime? Do they think we're too stupid to understand what 'horrific' means?

But you're not supposed to question this story. Can't you see there's a pun in the headline? And there he is in his pants! What are you, anti-fun? Ha ha ha! Isn't everything cheery?

In amongst this, the Sun says: 'Stay on guard' because:

EVERY month without a new 7/7 terror strike lulls us into dangerous false security.

Memories have faded so fast that some would rather condemn police for overkill than praise them for trying to protect us.

So the trial of terror plotter Dhiren Barot is a timely wake-up call. [...]

But security chiefs warn there are hundreds more where he came from — and thousands willing to offer support. It is only a matter of time before some succeed.

We cannot afford to drop our guard for an instant.
What would the Sun's version of this World War II poster have on it? Veils? Brown men in crazy beards with starey eyes?

Look at that second line. Some of us condemned police as soon as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes happened - in the same bloody month as the 7/7 'terror strike'. And we weren't condemning them for overkill. We were condemning them for killing an innocent man because of rank incompetence and then lying about it. But never mind that! Here's a picture of a monkey with a fag in its mouth! Don't you like fun or something?

That monkey picture was in the bloody news section.

So you have a matey matey, let's all have a laugh at the silly pictures atmoshpere that covers some blatant propaganda. That's what I don't like. The ha ha, let's all play a game and look at some tits stuff creates an environment where to question anything is to be a killjoy and a spoilsport. Which is a shame, because when you do question some of it, you can often see it's complete bullshit.

Still, it's kind of off topic, but if there really was a series called Celebrity Shit Yourself, I'd watch it.

No comments: