Isn´t it the journalist way always to abuse what happens for some sensation and then finish it off a short time later with an half hearted apology but at the same time trying to blame the people whom react offended stating you were misunderstood, although there´s nothing to misunderstood about this article??
Jan Moir is in my eyes a homophobic woman who never noticed she was one…
Yet again, Jan Moir shows that she just doesn’t get it; and yet again – because she just cant accept that she may be wrong – she compounds the original offence with another diatribe of self-serving drivel that is ineptly disguised to look like an apology.
All today’s instalment has done is confirm that the original article was indeed a the poisonous, hateful, bigoted rant that we all believed it to be, and that any sad pretence of an apology is to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. If you doubt that, then you only have to look at how she contradicts what she originally said about Gately and civil partnerships, without ever actually admitting that she was wrong – for example “could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk” vs “a talented young man died before his time”.
It also shows that Jan Moir doesn’t understand the very basic concept that if you exercise your freedom to say whatever you want, without consideration for a few basic notions of human decency, then you also have to accept the right that other people have to construe from it whatever they want – in this case: that Jan Moir is, was, and always will be, an odious, unfeeling, spineless bigot.
Apologsing for the timing but not the content is not an apology. It would have been offensive – and hurtful to his loved ones – a month, a year, a decade after he died. Trying to justify what she did just makes said excuse for an apology even more hollow.
I congratulate Polydor on their complaint, though. And whoever made the complaint to the police, because you can be sure that’s going to get more done than our 21,000 plus complaints to the PCC – which, I do have to say, was an incredible thing; we made history there, and we’ve also highlighted the ineffectuality of the PCC; it’s just awful that it happened because of such a tragic event.
Nala – I say this as a training journalist. Please don’t tar us all with that woman’s brush.
Harthacanute – I completely, utterly agree. Thank you for putting it so much more articulately than I ever could. :)
“insensitive timing” ? No, you stupid woman – it was WHAT YOU SAID. How difficult it that to understand? Stephen’s sexuality had no bearing whatsoever on his death, and your article was nasty, cruel and ignorant. No doubt you thought you’d be applauded by the many homophobic Daily Mail readers. Gay people are one of the last groups you think you can have a go at with no comeback – but you got one, and it serves you right. And you STILL won’t admit you were at fault…
I wonder if she would have had the nerve to say it served Princess Di right because she was having an affair with an Arab and thats why she died? I think not! Its no real apology is it and all those people who complained prove the point of her bigotry!
She will only ever understand the folly of her way when the Knightsbridge dinner party invitations start to dry up. She’s probably persona non grata already.
This woman should be sacked. Her comments, completely without foundation caused distress to Stephen’s family and friends and were insulting to a huge section of the community. To have the gall to apologise for the insensitive timing merely adds to the insult.
What a silly, unguarded statement from an intelligent woman. Talk about trying to wriggle out of a cespit of her own making!
What collective noun could one offer for 22,000 “hysterical overreactors” to her disgraceful piece of tatty journalism, which is too nasty and vicious even by the Mail’s apalling standards.
Jean, my dear, your writing days on Fleet street are at an end; if your Editors are not shot of you soon, then I suggest that if any of the twenty two thousand overreactors who purchase (God forbid) this rag of a newpaper, boycot it for six months, or preferably for good, then maybe the hysterical minority could make a point.
Know when you’re beaten and bow out gracefully – there are plenty more journalists with standards just waiting in the wings.
She should do the decent thing and fall on her sword … failing that resign at least
In One, Sister Mary; resignation’ by far the best option; falling on her sword may puncture her inflated ego, and that would never do, would it………..
Notice that there were no adds on today’s article ;)
In other words she would have said the same thing at a less sensitive time. So she is still a rabid homophobe all year round, not just when there is a convenient dead man to pick on.
If anything, this week’s rant just confirmed what she wrote last week. She has not apologised fort the hateful, homophobic things she said, only about the timing if them. If she seriously thinks that what she said is not homophobic, then I would hate to see when she writes a real homophobic piece. She is a hideous woman who has as no ethics or morality whatsoever. And as for the PCC, well’ they’ve shown they aren’t capable of regulating themsleves, haven’t they? What a useless bunch of wankers.
Moir’s article today was written for one reason and it wasn’t to apologise. It was to give her a platform to defend her article and its content. She gave a short and unconvincing apology before launching into how everyone else in the world is simply ‘hysterical’. Can’t believe how she continually referred to Gately’s “lifestyle” and used words like ‘troubling’. It’s even more unbelievable that someone could talk about the ‘myth’ of happy gay marriage and wonder why they’re being labelled a homophobe. Hopefully someone will buy Jan a clue for Christmas.
If she received bile emails in response to her article, it is nothing compared to the vitriolic bile she wrote. If those are the best responses she can come up with by way of a supposed “apology”, then perhaps she should step away from the word processor and drink a nice cup of “shut the f*** up”.
It amazes me that she has still managed to spin a defensive story about this, and turned it into a ‘worrying’ observation of society that we are all over the top when it comes to being politically correct.
But what amazes me more is the fact that she genuinely thinks the public were making something out of nothing. I accept that it was distasteful to talk about Gately’s death as being sleazy, but – as a gay person – that wasn’t what offended me. What offended me was having the death linked to civil partnerships and the gay lifestyle.
Moir has since said that she would have written the same article had Gately been heterosexual, but I’m sorry – I can’t see her having written that his death struck a blow to the happy ever after myth or marriage. That just sounds insane.
And so, no, I don’t think we are making something out of nothing.
many homophobes claim it’s about political correctness and never see how or why they are homophobes
it’s no surprise she made her apology into a platform for a second attack and even claimed she was not homophobic
Completely agree with you Vicki, how she can attempt to spin the words “Striking another blow to the happily ever after myth of civil partnerships” into anything other than a crude attempt at disparaging all gay relationships based on a single example is just plain brazen.
Not only did she not have all the facts on Gately’s death and blithely ignore the coroner’s verdict in favour of bigoted innuendo, but she used that as an ill informed test case to generalise about all gay relationships which is what grates the most.
Perhaps if she opens her mouth wide enough she might just get the other foot to fit in there.
Someone teach her how to apologise properly, as apparently her long experience in journalism hasn’t given her the know-how to write a proper apology yet.
No difference exists between Jan Moir’s comments in the Mail and Nick Griffin’s on question time.
I bet Jan Moir would agree with the labels we attach to Griffin (fascist and homophobic) yet she can not see why the first edition of that article was deeply homophobic. One wonders how somebody that blind manages to write her trashy column.
The only orchestrated campaign I can see is by Jan Moir herself using the print media to imply things about her critics.
Jan Moir would be quite an acquisition to the Taliban.
After all, look at how easily she could spread Sharia Law in the land of Shakespeare.
Also, she would look good in one of those burquas, a lifeless brown one, and no high heels and make-up allowed now!
I doubt very much she will be fired and neither will she retire. The Daily Mail are having a field day with this one, and that includes a windfall. $$$$$ Ding!
Jan Moir – Rancid last week, rancid this week. Most likely rancid next week, if she hasn’t been sacked.
um, that was an apology? coming from the USA, i’ve never read her column before, but it’s clear she needs to be fired. she has no clue, and she’s mean and vindictive. what can be done to facilitate this? it seems 22,000 letters/emails isn’t doing it.
Is she a member of the BNP – she should be the BNP publicity office worker.
Casey – coming from the USA as you do, you probably don’t realise that the newspaper Jan Moir writes for is barely less reactionary than she is. The Daily Mail sacking Jan Moir would be like Hitler sacking Goebbles for being “too right wing”.
Remember an editor most likely gave her article the seal of approval before it went to press.
To get a general flavour of the Daily Mail’s editorial bias, check out this glossary of well used phrases and words which are used liberally in every issue…
“If I caused distress”?
No Jan. I’m sure over 22,000 people complained about you because they got out of bed on the wrong side!
Is there an award for the most hated media person in the UK?
If she had any decency she would resign and go away, maybe into a convent or something.