The Media Blog has drawn attention to a particularly striking example of hypocrisy at the Daily Mail which is worth mentioning.
It begins with an article from yesterday, written by Paul Revoir. The article asked:
The article explains:
The BBC is facing a new controversy over the way it handles death after it was revealed that the corporation is to screen a dying man’s last breath in a programme about the human body.
This comes little over a week after the broadcaster was accused of being a ‘cheerleader for assisted suicide’ for filming a man killing himself at a Dignitas clinic for a separate programme.
Yesterday it emerged that the second episode of a BBC1 science series called Inside the Human Body, to be broadcast next month, will show the moment an 84-year-old man called Gerald dies at home surrounded by his family.
Revoir’s piece is not atypical of the kind of BBC-bashing the Daily Mail regularly takes part in, usually over the daftest of things.
But this particular attack is especially notable. Why? Because on the very same day the Mail were criticising the BBC for chasing ratings by showing a man’s final moments, the Mail were busily chasing hits by doing exactly the same:
In fact, the Mail were so keen to exploit the tragic death of this man for a few thousand visits, that they were willing to sacrifice almost the entire above-the-fold section of their homepage, as well as their search box.
Such a drastic rearrangement of their homepage had previously been reserved for big-news stories, like the announcement of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding and the Japanese earthquake.
But stories such as this one about the human cannonball are by no means uncommon at Mail Online. You’re sure to find at least three stories of tragic or unusual deaths there each day – all of them published with no other purpose than to entertain and to attract visitors.
So considering that the Mail clearly see nothing morally wrong with exploiting a man’s death for entertainment purposes, why do they see something wrong with the “exploitation” of a man’s death for educational purposes?
One can only assume that the Mail will use absolutely any excuse to attack the BBC, entirely regardless of its own actions.
(Hat-tip to The Media Blog. And thanks to @JonathanHaynes for the screenshot of the Mail website.)
"So considering that the Mail clearly see nothing morally wrong with exploiting a man's death for entertainment purposes, why do they see something wrong with the "exploitation" of a man's death for educational purposes?"
I think it's because the more educated people are the more they will realise the Mail is a shoddy newspaper and switch to something with less celeb upskirts and dog-whistle racism. Plus it's liberal namby pamby PC education being paid for by OUR licence fees.
This isn't blatant hypocrisy. It's perfectly in accordance with Associated Newspapers' interpretation of public service broadcasting – that is, our taxes should only be spent on providing a service that the free market would otherwise not provide.
As clearly indicated by Mail' Online's front page, the market provides more than adequate coverage of people's last breaths. That the BBC has decided to get in on the act, albeit via a different death, is systematic of the blatant waste and disregard that the cabal of lefties in White City (+ Nick Robinson) have for ordinary, everyday Christian taxpayers. The market adequately provides news, weather, situation comedy, lifestyle advice, photographs of female celebrities at the beach looking flabby or too thin, etc; there is no reason for the taxpayer to burden wasteful duplication.
Why do we need BBC Breakfast when the market already gives us Daybreak? Why does Radio 4 feel the need to broadcast Money Box Live when Financial Mail exists to cater to good old middle-class fiscal fortitude? What needs to be done is obvious – strip the BBC back to what only the market will not provide (Gardener's Question Time, and anything on BBC Four) and leave the field open to fabulous private enterprises such as…err…Associated Newspapers.