Perhaps you’ve seen this story going round from, where else, The Daily Mail:
So here’s a little point-by-point summary of the actual story, which you can view on archive.org to avoid giving hits to the Mail:
-Woman is shocked to find men in what she “assumed” was a female changing room, without considering that maybe she assumed wrong. (All changing rooms have their own booths, so no-one would be changing in front of anyone else anyway.)
-Later this woman couldn’t find a changing room in Zara (unsurprisingly they tend to be pretty full around Christmas shopping time???) so decided to get changed outside one, which is a communal space.
-She refers to this as her being in a “safe space” which is weird because I remember the Daily Mail claiming safe spaces were for SJWS and snowflakes.
-She was shocked! SHOCKED! that people were walking around in this communal space while she was changing, and even more shocked that none of the men were actually paying attention to her.
But again SHE CHOSE to get changed in an area where everyone could see her!
-Later on in the article she brings up shops in areas which “are home to a large Arabic community” as if that has anything to do with anything.
-Apparently it is all transgender people’s fault that she was late to her office party, rather than her own poor planning.
I’m sorry, Charlotte, but this safe space you want doesn’t exist. And safe spaces are bad, remember? The people you work for have made that quite clear.
The message is clear: go back to work and risk your lives in the midst of a world disaster (come on! Don’t you want to be gaslit into being a hero?) or you’re lazy, worthless scroungers.
Typed, of course, from behind the safety of a computer screen.
Nor was it just biased reporting. Some columnists – the Daily Mail’s Richard Littlejohn led the way – simply used their columns, read by millions of people to attack a woman who wanted only to live her life in peace.
Littlejohn wrote a piece headlined: “He’s not only in the wrong body … he’s in the wrong job”, seemingly oblivious to the grief caused by misgendering Lucy. His focus was “the devastating effect” on pupils of Lucy’s change in gender.
“Why,” he asked, “should they be forced to deal with the news that a male teacher they have always known as Mr Upton will henceforth be a woman called Miss Meadows?”
Lucy was all about protecting those closest to her: friends, family, myself. So she worked hard to give the impression that this was annoying but she was dealing with it.
Still, when she came to spend that Christmas with us, I could tell that she was quite low. A friend, someone she had been falling in love with, had recently died. The hormones were continuing to have an effect. And it seemed the press were not going away any time soon.
We got through January, but it was hard to shake the sense that the press damage had gone deep. On 7 February, Lucy made her first suicide attempt. Or rather, she explained, she made her practice run. Because this was the only rational solution.
Today the Daily Mail, that last bastion of patriotism, decided it would be a great idea to slag off the RNLI because – gasp – sometimes they assist and save people who aren’t British. Who aren’t even white!! is the Daily Heil’s very strong implication. Luckily, I finally got a little taste of how it feels to be actually proud of your country when people fought back:
In response to the @MailOnline & @thetimes:we are proud of our international work. Its saves (mostly kids') lives. And we haven't kept it secret – it's in our annual report, on our website and in the media. We spend just 2% of our expenditure on this work: https://t.co/STztOxG1OP
Learned today that @RNLI save lives around the world as well as in the UK. I'm delighted about this. What a fabulous organization! I also learned that some people think saving lives should be dependent on passports. What a sad, limited view of this beautiful world. #RNLI_disgrace
You have to almost pity the Daily Mail for considering RNLI's international work with vulnerable communities at the mercy of climate change "political correctness gone mad". That is where we are now. To these people, helping and empathising is a weakness. #RNLI_disgrace
The awful bile from The Daily Fail about @RNLI nearly broke me. Then I read about the compassion and humanity of people donating/increasing their support, and realise we outnumber the idiots. We just need to be as vocal as they are. #RNLI_disgrace
I donated some money and you can too! And on some personal notes:
One: A few years ago I wrote a “Thunderbirds” satire about International Rescue being taken to task for rescuing refugees and asylum seekers. I took some of the dialogue from real newspaper headlines. Maybe it needs an update.
Two: I never lived in a seaside town but my dad did, and my grandmother still does. Usually whenever we visit we can see the lifeboat station at work. Here’s some of the things they did recently.
‘I came into this and called Joe and Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new Thor now,”’ Chris said.
He was referencing the highly acclaimed shift towards a comedic, self-referential tone he and Taika made with Ragnarok.
But instead of observing his request to keep the character’s newfound mojo alive, the Russo brothers reportedly told him they’d ‘reinvented’ the character once again.
Chris recalled his response: ‘I was like “no, no, no” and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika.’
They explained that the new direction was in line with the higher-stakes of the Avengers film, and to ensure the character worked well in an ensemble cast.
Fuck the Russo brothers
this is from the fucking daily mail
I bit the bullet and clicked the Daily Mail link (with adblocker on). They’ve essentially reposted an article from the Telegraph, except subtly changed things here and then.
The key takeaway from the original article:
The Russo brothers told him they had reinvented the character of Thor all over again, something that took Hemsworth a while to embrace.
“I was like ‘no, no, no’ and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika,” Hemsworth said.
“They then said, ‘No this is a whole different thing; Thor’s never faced something like this, never been a part of this large and ensemble.’
“I think for our characters it was difficult but for me a hugely exciting adventure.”
So Hemsworth had a couple of doubts which were soon more or less put to rest. Compare that with what the Mail has to say about it:
‘I came into this and called Joe and Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new Thor now,”’ Chris said.
He was referencing the highly acclaimed shift towards a comedic, self-referential tone he and Taika made with Ragnarok.
But instead of observing his request to keep the character’s newfound mojo alive, the Russo brothers reportedly told him they’d ‘reinvented’ the character once again.
[…]
Thor’s… knife? According to a report published Saturday, Infinity War writers (Joe and Anthony Russo) ignored Chris’ requests for them to observe the dramatic changes made to the character in Ragnarok
[…]
This means (infinity) war! Chris recalled his response: ‘I was like “no, no, no” and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika’
Check out that emotive language! This wasn’t a chat between collaborators, it was an argument, they ignored him, it meant WAR! The Mail is not subtle about who it wants you to sympathize with here. Check out the headlines even, the original article from the Telegraph:
Chris Hemsworth’s big worry with new ‘Avengers’ movie
Verus the Mail:
‘I felt stuck’: Chris Hemsworth argued with Avengers Infinity War writers after they ‘reinvented’ Thor against his will for the upcoming sequel
Does the quote “I felt stuck” appear anywhere in the article, apart from in the dramatic clickbaity headline and one of the photo captions? It does not.
Because, if you click if the original Telegraph interview, you will see that he is not talking about “feeling stuck” in regards to the Infinity War script, but rather in regards to the first two Avengers movies:
Hemsworth felt he hadn’t given his best performances in the past two Avengers movies, but his experience on Ragnarok gave him the self-assurance to make his voice heard.
“I felt stuck about what I was giving there and felt like I probably wasn’t bringing my portion to it as much as I could have,” Hemsworth said.
So the Mail are outright misrepresenting what he said in order to get you to click. And it worked!
…
Okay. This is a tiny thing. Fundamentally, it does not really matter that Thor, a fairly standard white male superhero, might be written ever so slightly differently (but still as a superhero!) in a film that has 20+ characters vying for attention. But why am I bothering to write all this then?
Because this is how the Daily Mail operates. This is, in the bluntest possible terms, how they’ve managed to keep their hate-spewing empire running for so long. They adjust the facts just enough to get you angry, angry enough to click and read and pass the article along. How dare those writers disrespect my favourite actor, fuck the Russo brothers, and so on! They thrive on your outrage and weaponise it. Click, click, click. More ads, more money.
The Daily Mail is not a legitimate news source, and it’s to the extreme detriment of everyone that people seem to think they are. If you haven’t heard the story of what they did to Lucy Meadows and her wife, I urge you to drop by and read it now. [tw transphobia, suicide] If you haven’t heard how the Mail tried to needle Lilly Wachowski when she came out, insisting how someone was obviously gonna out her so it might as well be them, read that too. The story of how one of their columnists used the death of a gay pop star to fuel homophobia? It happened a while ago, but it’s also a good look at how they operate – of course their story is the right one, can’t they be trusted over the words of those trained medical professionals who’re “spinning” a different story? When in doubt, misrepresent.
Guys, what I’m basically saying is… in the world we live in today (we all know what’s been going on around here recently) we’ve gotta be so careful with these things. Obviously a huge amount of the people round here don’t know what the Daily Mail actually is, don’t live in the same country even, I’m not really blaming anyone. It’s just, you know – that’s how they get you. “Well, I was angry about the writers for a upcoming superhero movie, and the Mail validated that anger by making them seem like arrogant villains. What else’ve they got?” Click, click, click. Outrage, outrage, outrage. Most popular English-language news website in the world.
I’m sure Infinity War will be just fine.
so y’all do your fact-checking when it’s about your fave marvel clownshow but when the media primes you to hate the last jedi by mischaracterizing mark hamill’s disagreements with rian johnson y’all fall for that one hook line and sinker doncha
I do do my fact-checking when it’s about my favourite marvel clownshow, yes, or I try to. (I suppose it doesn’t hurt that a lot of my actual job is fact-checking, so I kinda enjoy it I guess.) I love that clownshow. And sometimes I very casually fact-check Mark Hamill stuff as well! I wonder about that-
Is it a Provable Fact that Hamill came out and said things like “he’s not my Luke Skywalker”? It is! (The Mail reported on this also.) Is it also a Provable Fact that he apologised on Twitter for making his doubts about the film public and praised both the movie and Johnson? Also true! And that put everyone in a difficult and annoying situation, where two completely opposite things are both technically true. Oh, and then came the “Human emotion? No time for that” article I linked to above. Were Hamill’s words there a joke? No clue. More confusion. I have absolutely no idea what Mark Hamill really thinks about The Last Jedi, but my guess would be “conflicted,” which is a 100% valid thing to feel and also probably a very difficult one when the eyes of the world are on you. Confusion and conflict are things it’s difficult to get a grasp on, whether you’re feeling them or wondering if someone else is feeling them.
But this post has me curious because of the use of the term ‘the media’ If the media is trying to get people to hate The Last Jedi, it’s really notdoing a good job. My post up there isn’t about The Media, it’s about that one particular piece of media, the Daily Mail. And if we’re being honest, I’m distrustful (in a way I need to get better at) of the idea that The Media In General is up to something nefarious, whether that’s trying to get you to hate a critically-acclaimed Star Wars movie or whatever. I totally get how quick and easy it is to use “the media!” as a shorthand, I’ve probably done it myself a hundred times. But behind the media are millions of people – I too probably technically count as ‘the media’ every now and again – and I just kinda feel like the time has come to relentlessly question “what does this particular groupof people want me to think, and why?” rather then “oh, the media, they’re all awful.”
To get back to the Daily Mail and why I wrote that post…
Mark Hamill has his own voice, and I think he’d be the first to admit that, as a key actor in one of the most popular franchises in the world, his voice is a pretty loud one. When he made the aforementioned Twitter post about his regrets over criticising TLJ, people listened. Y’know? Chris Hemsworth also has his own voice, and I’m sure if he’d spoken out about his words being taken out of context we’d have heard about it. These are famous men and in that respect they’re very privileged. And…the people who usually find themselves at the receiving end of the Daily Mail aren’t. If you wanna read about the sort of stuff they spread around the Internet and British newsagents every day, Stop Funding Hate is a pretty good place to start.
So what does this particular group of people, the Daily Mail, want you to think? I suppose I covered it in the above post, but their basic thing is that they want you to be angry and they want you to feel like only they can truly validate your anger. They’re bad. But they’re not the media. Y’know? And people who want you to hate The Last Jedi for whatever reason aren’t the media either.
‘I came into this and called Joe and Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new Thor now,”’ Chris said.
He was referencing the highly acclaimed shift towards a comedic, self-referential tone he and Taika made with Ragnarok.
But instead of observing his request to keep the character’s newfound mojo alive, the Russo brothers reportedly told him they’d ‘reinvented’ the character once again.
Chris recalled his response: ‘I was like “no, no, no” and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika.’
They explained that the new direction was in line with the higher-stakes of the Avengers film, and to ensure the character worked well in an ensemble cast.
Fuck the Russo brothers
this is from the fucking daily mail
I bit the bullet and clicked the Daily Mail link (with adblocker on). They’ve essentially reposted an article from the Telegraph, except subtly changed things here and then.
The key takeaway from the original article:
The Russo brothers told him they had reinvented the character of Thor
all over again, something that took Hemsworth a while to embrace.
“I was like ‘no, no, no’ and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika,” Hemsworth said.
“They
then said, ‘No this is a whole different thing; Thor’s never faced
something like this, never been a part of this large and ensemble.’
“I think for our characters it was difficult but for me a hugely exciting adventure.”
So Hemsworth had a couple of doubts which were soon more or less put to rest. Compare that with what the Mail has to say about it:
‘I came into this and called Joe and
Anthony and said, “Look, don’t write me the old Thor, we’ve got a new
Thor now,”’ Chris said.
He was referencing the highly acclaimed shift towards a comedic, self-referential tone he and Taika made with Ragnarok.
But
instead of observing his request to keep the character’s newfound mojo
alive, the Russo brothers reportedly told him they’d ‘reinvented’ the
character once again.
[…]
Thor’s… knife? According to a report published Saturday, Infinity War writers (Joe and Anthony Russo) ignored Chris’ requests for them to observe the dramatic changes made to the character in Ragnarok
[…]
This means (infinity) war! Chris recalled his response: ‘I was like “no,
no, no” and I was really protective of what I’d created with Taika’
Check out that emotive language! This wasn’t a chat between collaborators, it was an argument, they ignored him, it meant WAR! The Mail is not subtle about who it wants you to sympathize with here. Check out the headlines even, the original article from the Telegraph:
Chris Hemsworth’s big worry with new ‘Avengers’ movie
Verus the Mail:
‘I felt stuck’: Chris Hemsworth argued with Avengers Infinity War writers after they ‘reinvented’ Thor against his will for the upcoming sequel
Does the quote “I felt stuck” appear anywhere in the article, apart from in the dramatic clickbaity headline and one of the photo captions? It does not.
Because, if you click if the original Telegraph interview, you will see that he is not talking about “feeling stuck” in regards to the Infinity War script, but rather in regards to the first two Avengers movies:
Hemsworth felt he hadn’t given his best performances in the past two Avengers movies, but his experience on Ragnarok gave him the self-assurance to make his voice heard.
“I
felt stuck about what I was giving there and felt like I probably
wasn’t bringing my portion to it as much as I could have,” Hemsworth
said.
So the Mail are outright misrepresenting what he said in order to get you to click. And it worked!
…
Okay. This is a tiny thing. Fundamentally, it does not really matter that Thor, a fairly standard white male superhero, might be written ever so slightly differently (but still as a superhero!) in a film that has 20+ characters vying for attention. But why am I bothering to write all this then?
Because this is how the Daily Mail operates. This is, in the bluntest possible terms, how they’ve managed to keep their hate-spewing empire running for so long. They adjust the facts just enough to get you angry, angry enough to click and read and pass the article along. How dare those writers disrespect my favourite actor, fuck the Russo brothers, and so on! They thrive on your outrage and weaponise it. Click, click, click. More ads, more money.
The Daily Mail is not a legitimate news source, and it’s to the extreme detriment of everyone that people seem to think they are. If you haven’t heard the story of what they did to Lucy Meadows and her wife, I urge you to drop by and read it now. [tw transphobia, suicide] If you haven’t heard how the Mail tried to needle Lilly Wachowski when she came out, insisting how someone was obviously gonna out her so it might as well be them, read that too. The story of how one of their columnists used the death of a gay pop star to fuel homophobia? It happened a while ago, but it’s also a good look at how they operate – of course their story is the right one, can’t they be trusted over the words of those trained medical professionals who’re “spinning” a different story? When in doubt, misrepresent.
Guys, what I’m basically saying is… in the world we live in today (we all know what’s been going on around here recently) we’ve gotta be so careful with these things. Obviously a huge amount of the people round here don’t know what the Daily Mail actually is, don’t live in the same country even, I’m not really blaming anyone. It’s just, you know – that’s how they get you. “Well, I was angry about the writers for a upcoming superhero movie, and the Mail validated that anger by making them seem like arrogant villains. What else’ve they got?” Click, click, click. Outrage, outrage, outrage. Most popular English-language news website in the world.
Oooh is this what you mean? But it seems to be an experiment carried out by anti-Mail folks who wanted to make a point. And don’t get me wrong, they did make a point, but considering how unbelievably awful the Mail is I don’t think it’ll make much difference. :(
