Why This Is Hell

It is not a surprise that a Daily Hate Mail columnist has written an innuendo filled and unpleasant article over the death of a gay pop star. Their initial reportage was peppered with scare quotes over words such as partner and wedding and brother and friend and noted that various people (colleagues, family etc) were distraught. (No shit.)

What is a little surprising is how the online readership is responding to the story - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/Why-natural-Stephen-Gatelys-death.html. Times they are a-changing.


ETA: One advertiser has removed their advert from the Mail's website, piles of complaints to the PCC and now Charlie Brooker: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir


Moir meanwhile claims there's no undertones of homophobia to her comments.

ETA2:
Jan Moir responds to criticism of her Daily Mail article on Stephen Gately

"Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.

"However, the point of my column-which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read - was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately's death - out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger - did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.

"The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that 'he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine', I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that 'it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships' I was suggesting that civil partnerships - the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting - have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.

"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."




Undertones, no... [and my understanding is that the third party wasn't a stranger]