“It was an eye-opener for people in the building who could not understand why Facebook and Twitter were attacking them.”
Well not surprising. The people who work at that vile rag are clearly not the brightest.
I love the fact that Jan Moir’s career is effectively over. No matter what she has done in the past, or what she does in the future, she will be remembered only for her homophobia.
As for this Bromley character – he’s clearly ignoring the fact that many of us read the vile article without clicking on the Daily Heil’s website.
“Yet the Ten O’ Clock News and the newspapers the next day pick up on Twitter as being a medium which resembles…a true indicator of mass audience”
Oh dear. Does that mean that mass audiences don’t have a clue what is going on but seek to opine about it anyway?
Where’s Sqwitter on this one (apologies for the spelling mistake)
hasn’t an editor heard of cut’n'paste? it’s easy to cut a few remarks out to show people
I retweeted the Moir article many times, but like with most Faily Male articles I share, I did it in such a way so that people could read it without giving the Fail traffic and advertising revenue. A lot of people I follow do this too. I’m sure Mr. Bromley is well aware of this.
will someone not think of the children, and stop using this thoroughly VILE photograph of this hag.
The combination of sickly sweet “Miss Penelope Perfect” combined with the smug, well-fed look of a baby-eater is just a bit too much!
As the great Mr Fry said, “I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane.”
It’s perfectly possible to have read the article, or an analysis of it, elsewhere. People are allowed to have opinions, however misinformed they may be (as the DM showed by publishing that shite in the first place). Just because the number of people yelling doesn’t correspond to the number of people who read the article doesn’t mean you can ignore the yelling.
Yet they don’t seem worried about the fact that the vast majority of those who complained about Sachsgate didn’t hear the programme either but were only complaining because the Mail told them to. I’m sure Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross as well as all those people at the Beeb couldn’t believe the level of vitriol aimed against them. But in the end the Beeb did the right thing, how long until we see Moir suspended?
I’m sure it’s true that many people who complained about the Jan Moir article hadn’t read it. Bandwagons.
Reminder for the Daily Heil.
Only 2 people complained about Sachsgate after the show was broadcast.
I was only when the Daily Heil orchestrated the witch-hunt did the complaints start rolling in.
The Moir affair had an instantaneous response and I reckon that far more of the complainants had actually read her poisonous article tham listened to the Jonathon Ross/Russell Brand show.
The Daily Mail is scum.
this = irony
That vile rag is still defending that filth and the hateful bigot who wrote it? It’s bad enough they didn’t sack the vile woman in the first place!
Think its a bit late to suddenly come out with these excuses all these months later. It doesn’t lessen the fact that Jan Moir’s article and comments were beyond contempt. She and the Daily Mail clearly saw an opportunity to make headlines on the back of such a sad occasion. They chose to use their complete ignorance to mock Stephen Gately and the LGB community at the lowest possible time. At no time did they consider the respect of Mr. Gately’s partner, Family and friends and, it has to be said the rest of the community. She and the Daily Mail should Not have been allow to get away with their comments.
The only reason for this sudden claim, I expect isn’t so much they got caught and caught bad because that I think is what was intension. It was the fact the ignorance lead them to believe nothing would come of it and maybe some support. They didn’t bank on the levels of distaste shown towards them and the support towards the gay community as a whole from all walks of life.
The damage to the Daily Mail and Jan Moir is great that they clearly feel the need to try and claw back some dignity. Sadly again they misjudge the mood. The damage is not reversable.
They should live with the disgrace they have created for themselves. They do not deserve sympathy.
Fascinating arguement – “some of the people we upset only found out about the vile, hate-ridden article from a third party”.
The MD of Mail Online is a hole-digging idiot. Shock.
no they read the version that was lifted from the mail site and stored on google documents so as to stop giving the Mail web hits. idiot.
*8:-”Sure”? How “sure”? Research evidence or mere opinion? “Sure”ly if no research to supplement opinion then that in itself might be considered to be bandwagoning?
Go on James Bromley… open your mouth a bit wider, let’s see if both feet will fit in there!
“It’s all an orchestrated witchhunt by gratuitously outraged people who wouldn’t normally even read the Daily Mail”.
Let’s clock this one up to karma then, huh?
Fact is we all still read that shabby article from end to end without boosting your URL hitrate, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
The utter arrogance of this Bromley twit to think that we would all flock to the daily Wail online to read the article thus giving them a higher hitrate.
Where doe’s this idiot live …under a rock somewhere perchance?
What really gets my ire up is the insult to my intelligence.
But then he is employed by the “daily wail” so one has to consider that. Smarts was never going to be a factor from that quarter.
I was at the event yesterday, some really interesting conversations about the deep depths of social media, how publishers use it and how to extract cash at the same time.
I must admit, I think Bromley’s been quoted pretty out of context in way a way to incite a response (mind you, about time they got a taste of their own medicine…), he in no way defended the article (which I thought was telling in it’s self).
Twitter – unveiling the true nature of an individual…
Ha! What a twat. For every single reason that’s already been posted here, and many more that we’ll try to get round to.
Who the hell do they employ to do their PR, anyway? Carrie Prejean? (That’s the hilariously bumbling anti-gay marriage beauty queen with the porn vids.) First, they print that abomination. Then, they have Jan Moir write a vicious and insensitive rebuke, apologising to Gately’s family only for her timing. Then, they hire Andrew Pierce from the Daily Telegraph to help them with some covert gay-bashing (he’s gay, so that apparently makes his stereotyping of us OK).
And then they follow it up nearly half a year later by reaffirming that they still think they did nothing wrong and that we’re the bad guys. Only the Daily Heil could be this stupid.
I wonder what political party Jan Moir and the rest of the daily mail editorial team votes for? What do you think SQUIDGY? Tory by any chance?
The next time the daily mail print a homophobic story, we should all buy the copies then do mass burnings of the paper in the streets in protest.
Attached to the “sore a way” Sun is the stinking corpse of the Hillsborough disaster. Decades later the editorial of that particular publication begged and whined to be forgiven for the utter loathsomeness of that abnegation of all standards of truth and decency. The Daily Mail (just like The Sun)) will never expunge the stink or repair the damange done by Ms Moir and nor should they. They will discover that people have very, very long memories.
Doesn’t the Mail have editors who are paid to read their product before it goes to print? If the editors didn’t read Ms. Moir’s tasteless, homophobic column, how can Mr Bromley blame the general public for not reading it. Or did the Mail staff think this article was in keeping with the Mail’s literary and ethical reputation? In the end, surely no one can be blamed for not reading the Mail.
the editors approve of homophobia as they seem to be plus many readers are
> I wonder what political party Jan Moir and the rest of the daily mail editorial team votes for? What do you think SQUIDGY? Tory by any chance?
Probably. But guilt by association is not a strong point. I am sure traditional Labour voters in poor areas of high immigration who complain about foreigners taking their jobs share little in outlook with the bright, young Labour voters in the city centres.
Oh, not her again. Ba-arf.
Couldn’t care less who they vote for, nothing to do with me. It’s there choice.
Left my comment about this (12)
Well without a doubt David Cameron won the debate last night.
Although I have always voted Lib Dem all my life, I’m proud to be voting Tory for the 1st time (in a General Election – Voted for Boris) on Thursday.
I reckon D. Cameron will keep to his word, we will Not loose any gay rights but we do need to sort this mess Labour has yet again left us in. Let’s face it whoever’s in we will have this ‘double dip’ personally I’d rather the Tories got us out of it and built up businesses again.
Thats My vote… Sorted!!
Does this mean I needed to be in the holocaust to know it was terrible and cruel?
Sage for Godwin. Oh wait.
I read it before writing about it and stand by everything I wrote. The woman and the paper she writes for are below contempt. I hope I’m around to “celebrate” her death the way she did Stephen Gateley’s.
Hey, Squiffy, good to know your mind was made up by a TV debate…..as though you were electing a president, not trying to establish the political party that might best represent your interests. Says it all really. Not that there’s much to say judging by what lurks between the ears.