I’m not saying Stephen Gately died because he was gay, but he obviously did.

16 October 2009

Jan Moir’s article for the Daily Mail this morning was – at the least – badly conceived and at worst homophobic and bigoted. It’s been a massive story on Twitter all day, and led to the Daily Mail pulling adverts from the page.

Jan’s article

Let’s start by pulling out a few snippets of what she said (I am selectively quoting here, read in context here):

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.

The reaction

Moir suggesting there was nothing “nautral” (her quotes) about his death has provoked a strong reaction:
It is “little more than ill-informed conjecture and sickeningly insensitive bad taste” and she “implies that there is something inherently immoral, dirty and wrong about same-sex relationships by dragging poor Matt Lucas [whose former civil-partner recently committed suicide] into her vile logic”.
• She insinuates “Gays can’t help but be hedonistic and do drugs, are rampantly unfaithful, unhappy and DIE!”
• Her train of thought is obscure: “Is Jan Moir really trying to link drug use with being gay? Or saying that civil partnerships will lead to death? Or what is she trying to do?”

What was she going on about?

So what was she saying? And what should we think about it?

Firstly she seems to dismiss that Gately died of natural causes. As far as I know she’s not a medical expert, nor does she have access to more autopsy information than the rest of us. Even the Daily Telegraph point out that this is like Chris Morriss’s Brass Eye “Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There’s no real evidence for it, but it’s scientific fact.”

But more worrying is what comes next. She talks about his sexuality and clearly states she thinks there is something sleazy about his death. She points out that Gately and his partner had been out clubbing the night before. She points out they brought somebody back to their apartment. She makes accusation and innuendo that is very clearly bigoted. And implies that this caused his death. Now then Jan, it’s one thing to make unfounded medical claims that you know nothing about, but it’s another to make a thinly-veiled attack on gay relationships implying that they’re sordid, they result in drug taking and unhappiness and lead to death.

Finally she concludes that Gately’s death “strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships”. (I don’t know who she’s aiming this at. Has somebody said that Civil-Partnerships are more likely to be happy-ever-after than heterosexual marriages?) She links Gately’s death to that of Matt Lucas’s former partner. There’s a clear underlying tone that implies gay relationships are the cause of unhappiness and – well – death.

Moir has since issued a statement that she only wanted to point out that there are unanswered questions about his death (I guess she knows something that the coroner, his family and we don’t – I wish she’d tell us), and thinks that “In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones”. She is wrong. Firsty the the campaign against her was clearly not “heavily orchestrated” – the outrage on twitter was the result of many individuals showing disgust – even some Daily Mail website comments showed the same disgust. But – and this point is key – if this was what she wanted to say she should have done so without the undercurrent of bigotry, sordid accusations, wild medical claims and veiled implications that homosexual relationships are invalid. She’s a clever woman. She could have done so.

More reaction

The Daily Quail parodied her article wonderfully: “Some might say the death and the fact that the deathee was gay are unconnected. To them, I say: ‘no’. Look at the facts – he died, and he was gay. Therefore he died of gay. If a young, healthy man dies whilst suffering from a cold, obviously nobody would suggest that the cold had killed him, but with gay it’s different. Medical reasons, and that. Isn’t it? Yes, I think it is.”

===

Follow-up, 7pm:

Two brilliant pieces by Charlie Brooker and Alistair Campbell


Michael Jackson: Death, Talent, News and Public Grief

27 June 2009

0414_michael_jackson_bn

So, the sad news of Michael Jackson’s death has been leading the news for a couple of days now. It was even the 8.10 story on yesterday’s Today programme on Radio 4. Whether it’s comparison’s to Diana on news that Dr Who was with Jasckson when he died, it’s been wall to wall coverage, 24 hours a day. Which is the crux of the problem with 24-hour news (Sky, BBC News 24 and the like). Because they’re constant, they need to find news. So the uncertainty and unknowing leads to useless news stories where nothing has happened.

For Many MJ’s death is one of those collective experiences – “the only thing real that’s ever happened to them” as Justin Bond put it about young people and 9/11. The collective experiences is about the desire for the big event touching many people, something the collective can relate to as a collective, something we can all feel, talk about, something (anything?) to emotionalise about: a desire arguably enhanced the absence of religion in peoples lives and a dispersed global community (rather spatially-confined ‘real’ communities and collectives).

Stereotypist’s cartoon of the day yesterday, maybe unexpectedly, was fabulously apt:

famous

There are two things I have read that really stick in my mind over the last day. The first, arguing that no, MJ is not the new Diana (although I did ponder yesterday whether that would make Farah Fawcett Mother Teresa, dying in the shadow of a more media-circussed star):

One of the interesting twists to the multiplicity of media now available 24 hours a day, coupled with the diminished importance of religion in most people’s lives, the idea of A Big Event, one that you know everyone is thinking about, everyone is talking about, something that will bring a sense of community, is more desirable than ever. The death of Diana remains the most obvious example: some of the emotion behind the world’s mourning was undoubtedly genuine, but it’s impossible not to suspect that the excitement at just being part of a collective moment exacerbated it beyond any reasonable limits. The growth of the 24-hour news culture and the explosion of the gossip magazine industry, both of which require either constant change or, more commonly, heightened emotion, has only rendered this even more apparent, as the national media hysteria over Jade Goody’s death made all too clear.

Michael Jackson was a hugely talented individual – even more, dare one say it, than Diana. He also led an unquestionably sad and damaged life. But his death shows up, even more clearly than Goody’s did, that the desire for collective emotion leads only to false emotion.

Now, I have never been the biggest MJ fan, but I cannot deny that he was one of the best and most influential musicians of my generation – his global stardom like no other musician I could think of. The second, therefore, because i couldn’t finish off without saying anything about the man himself, is from a surreal visit to the Houses of Parliament and conversation between Jackson and Lord Janner:

Lord Janner: “Jackson turned to me. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘I want your help. We need a new national day. There’s days for everything, from caravans to helping the blind and the deaf. But there’s no day when parents are told to hug their children and to say to them: “I love you”. My parents never did that to me’. That was very touching. It explained just about everything that afflicted him.”

“He hadn’t had an easy life but he was a quite remarkable man”


Have Your Say

20 February 2009

Friendfeed pointed me to the fact that a friend of mine posted a link to this Friday rant. The blog is dedicated to the stupidity of BBC News Website’s “Have Your Say” – indeed BBC news more generally – encouraging the kind of people that love to moan to write in and tell the world their thoughts on a news story.

Anyway, the real problem with the BBC comments system is the range of options you’re now presented with. You’re left with a choice between clicking “Recommend this comment” or else stepping away from the computer and banging your face on the wall for a few minutes. There’s no button for “This is bollocks”, “I can’t believe there are people this gullible and stupid in the world” or “I pity the confused, angry, cat penis that wrote this”. Even the Daily Mail manages to provide both “Thumbs Up” and “Thumbs Down” buttons. The end result of all this is that browsing the BBC’s “Have Your Say” forums makes reading the Daily Mail seem like reading the Socialist Worker. Left-wing bias my fat fucking arse.

Why is the commentosphere full of whinging whiners? OK so the blogosphere has it’s fair share of moaners but at least most of them are committed enough to put some thought into what they’re writing and construct some relatively legible sentences, hell, even put them into paragraphs!

More to the point, why does the BBC, which refused to show the DEC Gaza Appeal for risk of appearing to be impartial allow these halfwits to splurt their ill-informed claptrap all over their “news” pages?


%d bloggers like this: