MAIL CALL

Tell me about it.

Whether in its UK or relatively new US edition, the Daily Mail quite rightfully has

a reputation for being the anti-New York Times. As Wikipedia puts it, "The Daily Mail has been criticised for its unreliability, its printing of sensationalist and
inaccurate scare stories about science and medical research, and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In February 2017, the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source." 

Daily Mail unreliable? Tell that to their Royal Family-loving, Meghan Markle-hating readers! As far as they're concerned, the only thing separating their favorite newspaper from the Bible is that it's written for people with the reading comprehension of a kindergartener who's been held back a year or two.

An honest-to-God Daily Mail headline. I wonder
if British candle-makers sued for libel.

Sure, its Wikipedia entry provides an almost-endless section regarding its history of libel lawsuits. But if you want genuine insight as to the state of today's culture -- a phrase I hesitate to use when it comes to, er, culture -- the Daily Mail provides more genuine insight than a lifetime membership to the Museum of Modern Art. All you have to do is skim these headlines, running one after another after another:

Heidi Klum, 50, is TOPLESS while wearing a fur coat and tiny undies 

Rita Ora flashes her taut abs in multi-coloured bikini 

Devon Windsor, 29, flaunts her knockout figure in a strapless bikini

Joy Corrigan shows off her bikini body during Palm Springs trip for 36th birthday

Kim Kardashian puts on a busty display in a tiny bra and pyjama bottoms

Candice Swanepoel displays her incredible figure in a tiny black bikini

Alessandra Ambrosio, 42, puts her unbelievably perfect figure on display in tiny black bikini

There are more women covered (or uncovered), who, like most of the ones in the headlines above, are known only to faithful Daily Mail readers. Its critics consider this the objectification of women. 

Yet in many of the photos, the women are taking selfies. Whether they're  objectifying themselves or simply "taking control of their sexuality" is something I leave the world's great thinkers, a group to which I've never belonged. 

As it stands, there's a chance those in the non-selfies are being paid by the paparazzi to get these shots. The paparazzi, in turn, are making money selling them to periodicals like the Daily Mail. Everybody makes a buck (or a pound). 

Objectification? Sounds like capitalism at is purest.  Good for them! Just don't think of it as news. 

                                                                ***************