Jan Moir: adding insult to injury
So, much as we expected a week ago, Jan Moir has published a clarification of sorts; how sorry she was to cause distress to those near and dear to Stephen Gately; how shocked, nay horrified she was to have people misinterpret her words; how sinister and unnamed groups were engaged in a campaign to silence any brave journalist who dared to voice a dissenting or contrary view.
Right. And I am, as the saying goes, a monkey's uncle...
Jan,
According to your view of events, you meant to say the following:
1) That you felt that the death was in some way bizarre and possibly drugs-related, therefore worthy of public scrutiny.
2) That Stephen Gately was engaged in a hazardous (or sleazy!) way of life and that this may have in some way contributed to his death.
3) And that this should be marked down as an example of the fact that same-sex partnerships could fall apart as easily as heterosexual partnerships.
And somehow everyone took your words to be vile anti-gay slurs and worthy of a flood of orchestrated hate by 'pressure groups and those with agendas of their own'; you also claimed that many of the people criticising you hadn't read the article fully; and that many of the silent majority supported you.
To start, let's talk about point number three.
I've never heard anyone talk about a myth that same-sex partnerships are somehow automatically fabulous just because the couple are both male or female. Relationships are complex, often go through rough patches and can fail on short notice and in spectacular fashion.
This myth simply does not exist in the head of anyone with a mature view of personal relationships.
That said, if you weren't exclusively aiming those comments at same-sex partnerships, then why were your stated examples solely of such partnerships?
Would you really have written an article talking about the sudden failure of all marriages, something that exploded the myth of the nuclear family? - and can you really see the Daily Mail publishing it if you did?
The messy breakdown of celebrity relationships is after all a staple of the tabloid newspapers - it's hardly difficult to find examples if you want them.
Take, for example, the tragic deaths of Natasha Collins and Mark Speight last year. The same Mark Speight that you compared to a forgotten Christmas tree decoration.
An apparently happy heterosexual couple torn apart by drugs and the celebrity lifestyle. Did you simply forget about them? - after all, it was last year, rather than a couple of weeks ago!
You say that you would have said the same about the death of a heterosexual.
So why didn't you?
Point two: the sleaze. Funnily enough, that is a matter of personal opinion. It is not news.
Are you really under the impression that the world at large gives a fig about what you think is or isn't sleazy? - after all, a goodly number of the British populace would describe your reporting of such events as sleazy - and in the worst tradition of the gutter press.
Are we therefore to expect that you will suddenly drop dead of causes related to your journalism habit?
(And would you mind if we then speculated publicly about what textual depravities you must have committed to have earned such a strange and troubling death?)
Point one: what you perceived to be an unnatural end to a life. You were roundly castigated by various qualified bodies and individuals who pointed out that, yes, previously healthy thirtysomething men do sometimes drop dead.
Did you actually take the trouble to familiarise yourself with the medical details of the case before you ventured your opinion on the matter? - even if it would have meant delaying your comment until it was no longer headline news?
Or is forming an opinion on something without having read the text acceptable when you do it - and unfair when you're on the receiving end?
You are apparently quite shocked and surprised about the resultant storm and the speed with which it engulfed yourself and the Mail. The simplest explanation for this is your apparent ignorance concerning the new media, especially services like Twitter; and the responsiveness of the Internet to news. I am not saying that Twitter covered itself in glory in its response to this particular case - and I said so on the record at the time.
However, the response was most definitely not orchestrated in the manner that you are suggesting. The news of your column spread around the grassroots at the speed of rumour; from friend to friend, from contact to contact - they linked to your article, read it, saw red and commented on it to their contacts. And eventually, biggish Twitter names like Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker caught wind of it; and duly commented as well.
Perhaps you underestimate the scale of Twitter. If, for example, Stephen Fry's Twitter feed was printed on paper and distributed in this country, it would be the fourth largest newspaper in the UK. And it would be free.
Any Twitter user has a potential audience of millions and the ability to disseminate news in seconds - and that's what happened here.
You set the grassroots alight; they caught fire, and you and the Mail got burned.
No management of media, no direction by hidden figures and groups with agendas.
Just ordinary people with the freedom to give their opinion in public.
And while retweeting someone else's pithy comment is hardly akin to taking to the streets and rioting, it is a public act; and it is one that accompanies a genuine feeling. People talked about it, the PCC was suggested, the Daily Mail's corporate sponsors were alerted; and within hours, the online debate caused rapid and effective reaction in the real world.
You have (of course!) cited the myriads of supporting emails you received from those who agreed with you. The thing about support sent to a private email address is that, in the public eye, it's functionally identical to ... no support at all.
The collective term used online (for over twenty years!) for such silent but supportive multitudes is lurkers; and they are chiefly renowned for their choosing to support anyone who can't seem to find public support any other way. However, their support is entirely useless unless it is made public; which is where such self-proclaimed popular spokespeople tend to fail.
(Hence the sarcastic comment used: 'The lurkers support me in email!')
For all that most of the Twitter storm was a few seconds spent retweeting the opinions of others, it was done by real people who were prepared to commit their opinion to the public arena; and such actions, however small, will always carry the day against an unspecified number of people who simply aren't prepared to speak out.
Anyway, enough geekspeak.
The simple fact of the matter is that you caused massive offence to a large number of people with your original article.
And in response to this, you have issued a half-hearted, ambiguous, self-justifying opinion piece hinting heavily that you were being shouted down for saying the unpopular-but-true.
You say:
'Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.'
Are you really suggesting that your original article, laden with innuendo and implication, that mentioned only the behaviour of failed gay couples, celebrity usage of drugs and other 'sleazy' lifestyle behaviour - could be interpreted as an even-handed treatment of the subject?
Regardless of your target market, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
Do you seriously think that a disingenuous not-quite-apology overlaid with a well-developed martyr reflex comes across as anything but a calculated move on your part and a deliberate withdrawal behind smokescreen?
Frankly, your response looks intellectually dishonest. And that's putting it in the best light.
The alternative interpretation is the one you have hinted at: that you honestly and genuinely had no idea that people would react to your words in the way they did.
Which is worse on many levels.
You are a print journalist, Jan Moir.
Words should be your tools, your craft - and your bread and butter.
Certainly, the subs will sometimes carve your precious text up, correct inaccuracies and fit it to the page.
However, if your audience and the wider world misinterpret your intentions to such a degree; if such a massive failure of communication takes place; then it is ultimately your failure as a professional writer that is the root cause.
So would you rather be seen as economical with the truth, two-faced and evasive under pressure - or profoundly, memorably and spectacularly incapable as a journalist?
If you are genuinely sorry for causing offence to people (whether family, friends, or the general public); then a simple and unqualified apology will do nicely. It doesn't have to be long, it doesn't have to be ornate; a simple 'Sorry' will do.
The response you have given to date is grudgingly reminiscent of a schoolchild told to apologise for feuding with their peers - whatever may be said, the tone is one of resentment and persecution.
It fails to convince the audience of any contrition.
If you're genuinely sorry, don't quibble over it. Apologise unreservedly, learn from your mistakes and move on.
If you're not, don't bother trying; just learn to live with the fact that people will regard you as a two-faced bigot with a prurient interest in the private lives of others.
Right. And I am, as the saying goes, a monkey's uncle...
Jan,
According to your view of events, you meant to say the following:
1) That you felt that the death was in some way bizarre and possibly drugs-related, therefore worthy of public scrutiny.
2) That Stephen Gately was engaged in a hazardous (or sleazy!) way of life and that this may have in some way contributed to his death.
3) And that this should be marked down as an example of the fact that same-sex partnerships could fall apart as easily as heterosexual partnerships.
And somehow everyone took your words to be vile anti-gay slurs and worthy of a flood of orchestrated hate by 'pressure groups and those with agendas of their own'; you also claimed that many of the people criticising you hadn't read the article fully; and that many of the silent majority supported you.
To start, let's talk about point number three.
I've never heard anyone talk about a myth that same-sex partnerships are somehow automatically fabulous just because the couple are both male or female. Relationships are complex, often go through rough patches and can fail on short notice and in spectacular fashion.
This myth simply does not exist in the head of anyone with a mature view of personal relationships.
That said, if you weren't exclusively aiming those comments at same-sex partnerships, then why were your stated examples solely of such partnerships?
Would you really have written an article talking about the sudden failure of all marriages, something that exploded the myth of the nuclear family? - and can you really see the Daily Mail publishing it if you did?
The messy breakdown of celebrity relationships is after all a staple of the tabloid newspapers - it's hardly difficult to find examples if you want them.
Take, for example, the tragic deaths of Natasha Collins and Mark Speight last year. The same Mark Speight that you compared to a forgotten Christmas tree decoration.
An apparently happy heterosexual couple torn apart by drugs and the celebrity lifestyle. Did you simply forget about them? - after all, it was last year, rather than a couple of weeks ago!
You say that you would have said the same about the death of a heterosexual.
So why didn't you?
Point two: the sleaze. Funnily enough, that is a matter of personal opinion. It is not news.
Are you really under the impression that the world at large gives a fig about what you think is or isn't sleazy? - after all, a goodly number of the British populace would describe your reporting of such events as sleazy - and in the worst tradition of the gutter press.
Are we therefore to expect that you will suddenly drop dead of causes related to your journalism habit?
(And would you mind if we then speculated publicly about what textual depravities you must have committed to have earned such a strange and troubling death?)
Point one: what you perceived to be an unnatural end to a life. You were roundly castigated by various qualified bodies and individuals who pointed out that, yes, previously healthy thirtysomething men do sometimes drop dead.
Did you actually take the trouble to familiarise yourself with the medical details of the case before you ventured your opinion on the matter? - even if it would have meant delaying your comment until it was no longer headline news?
Or is forming an opinion on something without having read the text acceptable when you do it - and unfair when you're on the receiving end?
You are apparently quite shocked and surprised about the resultant storm and the speed with which it engulfed yourself and the Mail. The simplest explanation for this is your apparent ignorance concerning the new media, especially services like Twitter; and the responsiveness of the Internet to news. I am not saying that Twitter covered itself in glory in its response to this particular case - and I said so on the record at the time.
However, the response was most definitely not orchestrated in the manner that you are suggesting. The news of your column spread around the grassroots at the speed of rumour; from friend to friend, from contact to contact - they linked to your article, read it, saw red and commented on it to their contacts. And eventually, biggish Twitter names like Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker caught wind of it; and duly commented as well.
Perhaps you underestimate the scale of Twitter. If, for example, Stephen Fry's Twitter feed was printed on paper and distributed in this country, it would be the fourth largest newspaper in the UK. And it would be free.
Any Twitter user has a potential audience of millions and the ability to disseminate news in seconds - and that's what happened here.
You set the grassroots alight; they caught fire, and you and the Mail got burned.
No management of media, no direction by hidden figures and groups with agendas.
Just ordinary people with the freedom to give their opinion in public.
And while retweeting someone else's pithy comment is hardly akin to taking to the streets and rioting, it is a public act; and it is one that accompanies a genuine feeling. People talked about it, the PCC was suggested, the Daily Mail's corporate sponsors were alerted; and within hours, the online debate caused rapid and effective reaction in the real world.
You have (of course!) cited the myriads of supporting emails you received from those who agreed with you. The thing about support sent to a private email address is that, in the public eye, it's functionally identical to ... no support at all.
The collective term used online (for over twenty years!) for such silent but supportive multitudes is lurkers; and they are chiefly renowned for their choosing to support anyone who can't seem to find public support any other way. However, their support is entirely useless unless it is made public; which is where such self-proclaimed popular spokespeople tend to fail.
(Hence the sarcastic comment used: 'The lurkers support me in email!')
For all that most of the Twitter storm was a few seconds spent retweeting the opinions of others, it was done by real people who were prepared to commit their opinion to the public arena; and such actions, however small, will always carry the day against an unspecified number of people who simply aren't prepared to speak out.
Anyway, enough geekspeak.
The simple fact of the matter is that you caused massive offence to a large number of people with your original article.
And in response to this, you have issued a half-hearted, ambiguous, self-justifying opinion piece hinting heavily that you were being shouted down for saying the unpopular-but-true.
You say:
'Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.'
Are you really suggesting that your original article, laden with innuendo and implication, that mentioned only the behaviour of failed gay couples, celebrity usage of drugs and other 'sleazy' lifestyle behaviour - could be interpreted as an even-handed treatment of the subject?
Regardless of your target market, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
Do you seriously think that a disingenuous not-quite-apology overlaid with a well-developed martyr reflex comes across as anything but a calculated move on your part and a deliberate withdrawal behind smokescreen?
Frankly, your response looks intellectually dishonest. And that's putting it in the best light.
The alternative interpretation is the one you have hinted at: that you honestly and genuinely had no idea that people would react to your words in the way they did.
Which is worse on many levels.
You are a print journalist, Jan Moir.
Words should be your tools, your craft - and your bread and butter.
Certainly, the subs will sometimes carve your precious text up, correct inaccuracies and fit it to the page.
However, if your audience and the wider world misinterpret your intentions to such a degree; if such a massive failure of communication takes place; then it is ultimately your failure as a professional writer that is the root cause.
So would you rather be seen as economical with the truth, two-faced and evasive under pressure - or profoundly, memorably and spectacularly incapable as a journalist?
If you are genuinely sorry for causing offence to people (whether family, friends, or the general public); then a simple and unqualified apology will do nicely. It doesn't have to be long, it doesn't have to be ornate; a simple 'Sorry' will do.
The response you have given to date is grudgingly reminiscent of a schoolchild told to apologise for feuding with their peers - whatever may be said, the tone is one of resentment and persecution.
It fails to convince the audience of any contrition.
If you're genuinely sorry, don't quibble over it. Apologise unreservedly, learn from your mistakes and move on.
If you're not, don't bother trying; just learn to live with the fact that people will regard you as a two-faced bigot with a prurient interest in the private lives of others.