![]() |
Tell me about it. |
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. |
Heidi Klum, 50, is TOPLESS while wearing a fur coat and tiny undies
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.
***************
No comments:
Post a Comment