For the second time this week I find myself aware of the tripe that is contained in The Daily Mail without ever picking it up, let alone wanting to read it.

In this case it was what had been written, I don’t dare call it journalism, by Jan Moir about the untimely death of Stephen Gately. The article was originally called ‘Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’. The later change in title doesn’t mask the shoddy lack of any talent or integrity in the writing. After stating “All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances” she goes on to tell us all why in her opinion the death was sleazy and imply that it was as a result of being gay. “Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.”

Point One: Sleazy?
There is no proof anything suspicious happened to cause his death, nor that his death was in any way related to his relationship with his partner.

Point Two: Happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships?
How many people died as a result of domestic violence, drugs and alcoholism in heterosexual relationships and marriage? Relationship problems are due to people. Not sexuality. These things happen to people straight or gay.

This attack on Stephen and on anyone in a gay relationship is ridiculous. There is no research. There is no balanced view. There is no reasoning. That is because it is rubbish. This woman gets paid to write absolute and utter rubbish.

It makes me so angry that people write and print this stuff. And more so that there is a willing audience in the UK to read it, believe and support bigoted views.

Earlier this week my attention was drawn by Katy Regan to an article she had written for the Daily Mail about her unconventional family life and her son starting school. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but some Daily Mail readers who saw fit to comment (103 comments in total, comments are now closed) lacked any perspective and viciously attacked Katy, her son and his father personally e.g.

“Unwanted children who cannot be guaranteed a pair of loving and co-habiting parents should be aborted. End of story. “

You would think this was an in depth article about some awful family struggle. It wasn’t. All Katy had done was write a light-hearted humorous piece about the trials and tribulations of family life when you’re not a family in the traditional sense. If the comments were debate and response that would be fine, I’m not saying everyone has to agree with Katy. But there is no need to accept or tolerate personal attacks. I suspect that along with the rest of the population there are single parents, divorcees and other categories of non-traditional family set ups amongst the Daily Mail readership.

It makes me angry. And I really don’t know what to do with that. I’m not the only one who finds their blood boiling whenever they happen across an article from the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail has a circulation of about two million. That means there could be at least two million people in our country who believe and support the bigoted and prejudiced views spouted on a daily basis. I am all for free speech and people being entitled to opinions and debate. But the Daily Mail doesn’t encourage debate. The Daily Mail encourages hatred and intolerance. That is very different from opinion.

I avoid the Daily Mail where possible, but with the increase in social media find myself made aware of “stories” that anger me on a daily basis. Just because you are a tabloid does not mean you have an excuse for writing rubbish and influencing people in this way.

All I can do is rant. Write a blog that highlights the tripe and rant about it. It doesn’t achieve or improve anything. But what else can I do?

Update: If you aren’t all ranted out Charlie Brooker has written his over at The Guardian… and of course one thing we can do is complain to the Press Complaints Commission (www.pcc.org.uk) that the article breaches sections 1, 5 & 12 of it’s code of practice. Thanks Charlie!