Thursday, December 16, 2010

And it calls itself a newspaper

In WH Smith's yesterday I noticed the front cover of the Daily Mail. It had an 'exclusive' photo of the children of the suicide bomber. Surely there are privacy laws, especially regarding children, that should prevent that? They certainly can't claim it to be in the public interest and it can only be bad for all concerned.

If I'd ever had any doubt about the despicableness of the rag that pretends to be a newspaper they were dispelled yesterday.


nick said...

The Daily Mail publishes anything it can get away with. The concept of privacy doesn't interest them. Sometimes they get successfully sued, the rest of the time they get away with murder. And the other papers aren't much better.

Furtheron said...

Don't start me on journalism these days... I was talking to two friends the other day - all of us had had experience of a story about us or something close to us where the reporter just didn't report the facts at all - sometimes just through laziness and some others where at least one case was to make the person in the story look back and the reporter clever.

And the tabloids... to be honest there are only 1 or 2 papers I have any trust in at all now ... they should all carry a warning I think

SmitoniusAndSonata said...

Despicable !
It's everyone's duty to protect children and those that buy papers boasting of scoops like this are as guilty as the "journalist".