Didn't you know I'm heartless?
There seems to be a bit of a storm brewing about an article in the Express about the survivors of Dunblane. Now having read the scans of the article I'd have to say I find the piece a very nothing article in terms of content, and I'd agree that it's an example of the tabloid nature of journalism these days - let's make a story out of a non-event! But the article isn't what's offending me, what is offending me is the reaction.
Take Graham Lineham's blog post for example. Now we seem to initially agree that the article is, well, about nothing. Graham then turns on the journalist and accuses her of character assassination, he then complains he has no recourse to complain at being offended, then offering us a vast number of options to complain to the editors secretary (who he does point out we should be nice to and simply ask her to forward the complaint in fairness) and how to threaten advertisers with boycotts, well four of them anyways. Apparently Phil Jupitus and Peter Serafinowicz agree wholeheartedly with him and everything he said.
Well, personally I think we're all getting a bit carried away about the article anyway, it's just the usual hyping of nothing that happens these days. Well actually, I think the outrage of this incident is silly purely because we ignore it so often the rest of the time. Why do we not complain about the banality of so much news coverage these days? I mean seriously, the most shared item on the BBC news website right now is a list of jargon councils have been told not to use. The third most shared story is the actual story. Yep, a list of stupid jargon that people actually need telling not to use is apparently the story we all need to discuss - and we wonder why our news outlets are stuffed with such trivial rubbish? Apparently we love this stuff!
However my biggest objection to Mr. Linehan's piece is the very simple fact that he complains the Press Complaints Commission won't listen to his complaints simply because he wasn't the target of the story. Good. There's a difference between being able to say you're offended by guts and gore and being offended on behalf of other people. This whole outcry seems to be getting dangerously similar to the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand/Andrew Sachs debacle from last year. I didn't hear the broadcast until after the event when I wated to find out what the story was, and likewise I didn't read the Dunblane story until a few days later as I tried to find out what everyone was upset about. Well, except that last year it was stuffy old folk complaining while us cool Internet kids were saying we shouldn't be offended by stuff we hadn't heard firsthand, now it's cool Internet kids getting picked on a whole group of people who haven't read the Express are upset about something they never saw firsthand.
Sorry folks. Do I think the Express should've run that article? Of course not, but it's not my place to complain about it for any reason other than pointlessness. I am not offended, and I am not distraught over the article. I hope those named do complain, but I certainly won't. Oh, and I had no plans to buy the Express anyway so I can hardly say I'm now boycotting it like I suspect many will.
Like I said, I'm an evil heartless man.