Daily Mail - getting things into perspective

I've complained twice to the PCC about the Jan Moir article, and complained to the Daily Mail editor. I also strongly believe that now is the time for the PCC to become much more independent. Imagine my shock when I discovered that the person I was complaining to at the Daily Mail - the editor in chief, Paul Dacre - is also chairman of the PCC's Code of Conduct committee! That can't be right. Surely it is not rocket science to have some independent press experts on PCC panels, is it? They don't have to be currently engaged with vested interests in particular newspapers. It's ridiculous.

Having said all that, I do think a couple of things ought to be said to put the Jan Moir article in context; vile and disgusting though it was.

Firstly, I really think that articles in newspapers should be seen in the context of the regular readership of those newspapers. I have no idea how many regular Daily Mail or Mail Online readers complained to the PCC about the article. However, I suspect it was a relatively small proportion of the 25,000 complainants. Why does that matter? Well, regular readers do actually read other articles in the paper over time. The output of a newspaper should not be judged by one article alone (and, yes, I realise that the whole output of the Daily Mail is regularly offensive, but also bear in mind that the vast majority of the Daily Mail's output is actually benign tosh about celebrities and sport. Fred Basset, anyone?)

Which brings me to my second point. They were perhaps closing the stable door after the horse had bolted, but at least the Mail did feature an article yesterday from another of its regular columnists, Janet Street-Porter, who at least provides a small progressive voice within the paper's output. Her article on the Jan Moir article, the Stephen Gately death and "gay bashing" incidents in general is well worth reading. It's called "Being gay killed a man last week - and he wasn't Stephen Gately":

I was astonished to read in Jan Moir's column last Friday that his death 'strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships', and 'under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see'.

What exactly was bothering Jan? The fact Stephen was gay, the fact he was in a civil partnership, or the fact that he or his partner might have enjoyed sex with someone they had just met?

I don't think that gay men all behave in the same way - there are as many varieties of relationships within the gay community as there are in the straight one.

Civil Partnerships are just that - they are not marriages. And let's not forget, whether Jan likes it or not, they have been enshrined in law by our democratically elected parliament.

If Stephen and his partner went to a nightclub and returned to their flat with another man, is it really any of our business?

Fact - Stephen Gately died of natural causes, not from guilt. It's not as if extra-marital sex is unusual in our society.