This was a post I wrote last week about being on the receiving end of a very brief and slightly boring media shitstorm. It didn’t last for long (about an hour or so) but it was the first time I’d been called an anti-Semite so I wrote down some thoughts for preservations sake. I didn’t publish it because…
A) It wasn’t very funny.
B) I kind of forgotten about it.
However, by writing an Israel / Palestine joke this evening and then being on the receiving end of twattish abuse from both sides (I’m a Nazi / no Jews are Nazis / no Hamas are Nazis / I think we can all agree you hate some kind of race and that makes you racist, you Nazi) I remember that the post was sat here unloved and unpublished, so I thought I’d pop it out.
So, expectations sufficiently lowered and the anger from being lured here under an inappropriately salacious title hopefully dulled, here’s the whole goddamned shebang….
I have a confession to make. And it’s a big one. I had hoped to keep it secret for a bit longer but recent newspaper articles have forced my hand.
The sordid truth is that I hate Jews. Broadly speaking, I hate all races apart from the white race but I really really hate the Jews. They way they do Jewish things, being all Jewishy. It’s madness. They drive me crazy they do.
But, as you know, there’s nothing I love more than sticking it to the Mail – so when the opportunity arose to attack the Mail AND a Jew in one tweet…? Well, I was ruddy delighted I was, absolutely ruddy delighted.
One of the “leading lights of the leftwing Twitterati?” I’m flattered, Harry. Better that than ‘tosspot of all trades’ I suppose.
On the 4th of July a new user called ‘Abuaisha10’ posted a pretty obviously fake call to Jihadist arms on the Muslim community forum Ummah. The thread has now been taken down but you can see a cached version of it here.
Pretty swiftly the message was chased back to a Daily Mail IP address with one user naming the former Daily Mail writer Richard Ferrer as the source. I didn’t know who Richard Ferrer was. I probably should have Googled him.
I was sent the link, I sat on it overnight to see it gain a little bit of traction, checked it hadn’t been immediately discredited and then posted it on the morning of the 6th. This was my tweet:
Since it was pretty obvious (right, right?) that Richard Ferrer was unlikely to be trolling Muslims there was two options; a low-level intern at the Mail was using an old IP address and had done something stupid, or the whole thing was fake. There was a really interesting Reddit thread running which deconstructed it well and the general consensus was that it was at least plausible.
What was fascinating was that it was broadly agreed that it was probably fake, but what was stopping people from outright calling it was that it genuinely seemed like something the Mail might do. Any other paper? No doubt a spoofed IP address. The Daily Mail? Well, y’know, we wouldn’t put it past them…
However, it turned out that Richard Ferrer is editor of the Jewish News and conspiracy theorists were taking great delight in throwing all manner of abuse at him. They thought he was race-baiting and that this dodgy-looking forum posting was all the smoking gun evidence they needed. Suddenly this was proof of the New World Order, of the Jewish drive towards race war, of the Zionist somethingorother, and by God were they going to let him know it. In the worst way possible.
He wrote an article about it for the Independent, and it’s really good – even though it tries to guilt me by association into having spearheaded a racist hate mob. I’ll let that one slide as he was having a bad day.
Now, as we know – the only people on the internet who aren’t reactionary fucknuggets are you and me – and while we’re grown up enough to understand how compooters and inturnets work most people will still, in the words of David St. Hubbins, believe virtually everything they read. Is that my fault? No. I’m a comedy Twitter account who takes great pride in not being trustworthy. If you take anything I tweet as any more than frustrated abyss screaming then you get what you deserve, frankly.
Speaking of reactionary fuckwits, let’s see if Harry Cole has calmed down yet.
Apparently I’ve made up a smear on a random journalist. My very own media swirlstorm. How exciting. If pounced on in the street by journos I must remember to give my name as Raoul Duke. Unless, that is, ol’ Guido is accusing me of spoofing an IP address and writing that post… ah, I give up. On their deathbed no-one ever wished they’d spent more time arguing on the internet.
So I got a bit of abuse, Harry Cole got some abuse, Richard Ferrer got some more abuse – everyone got abuse, basically. The Daily Mail confirmed it didn’t come from their server and no-one really knows who spoofed the their IP address. Either it was a nutjob subtly race baiting or a hacker who picked an ex-employee name at random. Whoever it was, they played us well and I congratulate them. It’s nice to know we’re all as predictable as each other.
The other reason I posted the first tweet was because I wanted to set up this joke for two days later.
However it bombed heavily, so I can’t really use that as an excuse.
A few notes:
- I never named Richard Ferrer – I didn’t know who he was. If you’re unable to grasp that everything I tweet (yes, even the ‘serious’ ones) is to be seen through the simplified, blame based prism of the rightwing press then, frankly, you should probably stay away from my feed.
- I do offer my apologies to Richard Ferrer though – no-one should receive the sort of abuse he did, and while I do think that blaming me for anti-Semitic hatechains is a bit like blaming Russell Brand for UKIP, I do acknowledge that the sheer ubiquity of my tweet did ramp up attention on the story. However, it was also a fucking fascinating story – ‘real’ or not, and since I’m not a journalist I can tweet whatever I want however I want.
- Another perk of not being a journalist is that I can call Harry Cole a “reactionary fuckwit” without falling foul of an editor. I’d also add “shit-stirring little weasel” too.
- I still really massively hate Jews. Like, loads. Proper hate them.
PS: I hate Jews.
Simon Heffer has a book coming out all about the sloppy use of English language. Hooray for him. Judging by the excerpt in today’s Daily Mail, though, it’s less of a joyous romp through the intricacies of word play and more a list of things he doesn’t like. You know, like Katie Hopkins does.
I know it’s a Daily Mail link, and I apologise, but you may need to see this one for reference. Note, if you will, the titled mention of Harry Potter – designed to make you feel that Heffer is taking a swipe at falling standards in literature but, no, it’s just that he happened to notice a grammatical mistake in one of the books once.
All spelling and factual errors aside, I thought I’d check to see how the Daily Mail stood up to Heffer’s exacting standards.
There’s a story on MailOnline today that is really bugging me. It shouldn’t bug me because it’s just another one of those bullshitty space fillers about reality TV that all newspapers use to get clicks. It doesn’t matter and it’s about nothing, except I can’t shake the feeling that it does matter and it’s actually about everything.
Don’t worry, I won’t make you read it. Here’s the headline, though…
It bothers me for a number of reasons, but I think it stayed in my head because it actually bothers me for all reasons. Everything about it is fuckugly-wrong; and the cynicism with which it’s presented, and the contempt it displays for the readership is perfectly indicative of the Mail’s ‘between the truth and legend, print the tits’ style of journalism.
Firstly, this isn’t even a real quote. In fact, it’s not just not a real quote, it’s a second-hand not real quote given by an ‘insider’ to a newspaper owned by the man who also owns the TV station that makes the programme, a programme which features a journalist for the Daily Mail…
So this is where we’re at now. Journalists from the worlds most popular news website aren’t even watching the TV shows they’re reporting on – they’re copying PR quotes from other newspapers, and writing whole articles based on them.
Secondly, the whole ‘too blue for TV’ thing was shattered in the fucking 1990’s. This is Channel 5 we’re talking about here, the channel who would gladly screen 24 hour single feed shots of prostitute windows in Amsterdam if they thought they could pass it off as current affairs programming. If anything was left on the cutting room floor it will be the guttural word spunking of hand-painted-by-a-four-year-old micro twat Dappy as he attempts to stab a barely blinking woman in the back with his hilariously oversized penis.
Thirdly, yeah – the language offends me. Anyone who’s read my feed or blogs knows I like a good swear and explicit description once in a while, but do we really need to know that Dappy still uses the word “semi”?
I also object to the sheer hypocrisy of a newspaper that campaigns for a less overtly sexual world yet happy reports on someone having a “tight little ass” or, if you prefer, thinks “girl-on-girl” action is an appropriate sentence for a family newspaper.
The Daily Mail is currently running 10 stories about what happened on Celebrity Big Brother last night, filled with reports on explicit language, filthy flesh flashers, sex-talk and lesbian titlation. The tone is set just above breathless wanky excitement and just below moral judgement. ‘Look how awful (and sexy) these people are, and what awful (and sexy) things they are getting up to. Better watch tonight so I can be appalled (and aroused)…’
The really interesting thing, though – the really interesting thing – is where Liz Jones is in all of this. The answer…? Nowhere. Or, at least, nowhere near. The Mail have been unusually restrained in their promotion of her involvement, hardly featuring her at all unless they have to, and then only referring to her as a general journalist. I’d expect this is because they’re planning to announce, post TV show, that her involvement was some kind of sting article research and she will dutifully be awful about the other contestants to get more column inches. If she’s going to judge their lapsed morality, which she almost certainly will, alongside her commercially exploitable vulnerability then they can’t be having featuring her in too many nightvision horny catch-ups ahead of time.
The Daily Mail are hypocrites; pureblood, callous, cash-driven, hit-licking hypocrites. Their conviction that the blurred line between flirty-fun and all-out rape is the sight of a nipple actually hurts our society. Revel in the smut or cast out the sin – I honestly don’t care – but don’t warn of a forthcoming sex apocalypse with one hand and feverishly wank over primetime tit-peeks with the other. And especially don’t do it with second hand, PR quotes from newspaper with even lower morality than yours. At least the Daily Star is honest about being a red top version of the top shelf…
Incidentally, this story is still running on the Mail’s front page. Check out the final subheading. If these are the parameters for judging aggressive sexual behaviour, consider what’s more likely – a viewing of pornography, or living in a society in which excessive sexual imagery is presented as normal and to be commerically encouraged.
What’s that hashtag you use to get out of defending a slightly ignorant statement once you’ve made it? #justsaying?
Wait, no, it’s #newspaperoftheyear.
EDIT: Updated shortly after publication after it was pointed our Dappy said “semi” and not “stiffie.” Can’t believe I just typed that sentence.
Really quick one; today the Mail published an article about Sheffield Council refusing to publish a leaflet they wrote advising Roma migrants not to shit in the streets, leave their kids by open fires, ride horses through Meadowhall and so on. The article is here.
It’s eerily similar to this article published about two years ago about another binned leaflet suggesting Muslims are anti-social too. I wrote about this in great length in a blogpost called Filthy Moozlims – mainly about how the approved comments from Daily Mail readers were nothing more than open racism.
Well, like an Orbital sample, they’re at it again with the top comments being an invitation to spew out the most stereotypical, alarmist, ill-founded racist assumptions again – all welcomed and approved by the DM opinion leaders. As I’ve said before; the concern isn’t that people have these opinions, it’s that the Daily Mail think them appropriate to publish as part of a sensible and open discourse.
This is race-baiting, pure and simple – prodding the mutant readership into outrage because it fits a very profitable agenda. It’s an old move, but try substituting the word ‘Roma’ for ‘Jew’ and see how the perspective shifts.
The issue that should be raised by this story isn’t that these women chose to dress like the Twin Towers, it’s that a cabal of newspaper running old men made a conscious decision to expose two members of the public to the full brunt of the worlds scorn for doing nothing more than offending the sensibilities of a demographic of their readership.
This isn’t just the Mail, this is the full spectrum of the UK’s press that either pushed a none-story onto the front page of their papers or endlessly recycled the same judgemental hyperbole across a hundred worldwide news outlets to drum up hits, links, comments and adverts to justify their own existence.
Many commenters have noted that in this digital age it is impossible to guarantee privacy and that people should be more careful – but I don’t think this is the issue at all. This wasn’t a story until our beloved red tops started running with it, the issue is questioning what right they have to arbitrarily force private citizens into the limelight in the first place.
On Halloween I met an Irish woman dressed as an abortion, but did she have journalists running to her Catholic parents to tattle on her? Was her costume shown to people who had had abortions to capture their outrage? Were photos of her house with its exact location published on the world’s most popular news website? Did strangers call her place of study demanding she be expelled?
No, of course not. Because the right journalist didn’t have the right picture to fit the right demographic to fit the right slow news day. But it could have, it so easily could have. It could happen to any of us, because all it requires is one step out of line, one perceived slight to an preferred norm and they’ll hang you out to dry. Toe the line, show respect, think like this – or we’ll tell on you.
Were the ladies costumes offensive? Maybe. Should they have won a prize? Probably. Should they have been more sensitive to their parents history? Most likely. Who knows? Who cares? Who gives a fuck? It wasn’t offensive to the world until the press decided it was offensive to the world; there were no 9/11 widows demanding apologies inside a nightclub in Chester, and if there were there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have worn the costumes.
The whole point of everything is to make fun of everything. Are there limits? Sometimes yes, but they’re contextual, and nothing destroys context like the outrage of a dozen bored journalists. We need to keep our love of bad taste, of risking offence, of being a dick in public sometimes… of spending hours making a totally tasteless Halloween costume and then winning a cash prize for it. Because that’s funny. It is. It’s funny. It’s wrong. But funny.
By the way, the Sun’s front page headline was a fucking pun.
These women will now have this moment of teenage indulgence tattooed on their Google cached permanent records for life. For the next few years, certainly, they’ll be in Turkish internet prison where the simplest search will tell nothing but of that time they pissed off the whole world. And this was done because our gang of self-regulating mouthpieces thought they fucking deserved it.
And the rest of us had better get back in our places or else – watch out – we’ll be next.