Moggy wrote:Cuttooth wrote:Lotus wrote:KK wrote:I really think it's disgusting how few media outlets properly reported on this whole Dove "controversy", cynically fueling the outrage further. The Guardian, just one example of many, ran the original story on the 8th October, but only corrected it on the 10th, admitting at the base of the rejigged article "This article was amended on 10 October 2017 to include more information about the advert’s sequence.", the model in question writing yesterday and then this morning talking on BBC Breakfast (8:20am-ish if you want to watch it on iPlayer) to set the record straight on a few things, and how proud and excited they all were for the campaign.
I bet many of the journalists themselves didn't even watch the full commercial, investigated its context, or maybe they even intentionally hacked the advert up for screen grab purposes.
The Guardian loves misrepresenting things (usually statistics, but not always) to fit their narrative and so this is no surprise. There are/were so many morons on twitter working themselves up about it as well without bothering to look at the full picture (and of course shitty news websites just embed these tweets and call it an article, which only spreads the 'outrage'). It's what happens when everyone's desperate to be a victim and itching to accuse people/organisations of an '-ism'.
The Guardian had an entire article yesterday written with the words of the model explaining how she isn't a victim at the hands of Dove. Surely they should have suppressed that if they merely wanted to willfully misinterpret everything?
Shush, don’t get in the way of old men shouting at clouds.
The Guardian's still my favourite paper but they do quite often post utter shite. One that caught my eye the other day was a long read focusing on Colombian transgender prostitures being killed which, on the face of it, was a pretty interesting story. Except someone underneath the article had crunched the numbers and realised that actually, being transgender had no bearing on whether you were going to get murdered and, as such, nullified the premise of the article.
I much preferred the content when Alan Rusbridger was still editor. Thought there was much less clickbait and ludicrous gender/race articles written only to generate controversy under his reign. Although I did briefly work there when he was in charge so that has perhaps clouded my judgement.