Irony warning: You might want to sit down for this...

The Daily Mail today has run an article accusing a celebrity of exploiting their young child for photo opportunities:

Irony is dead...

This of course is the same Daily Mail which has created a whole new genre of journalism dedicated to objectifying the pre-teen children of celebrities and passing comment on their figures and attire. They've even run photographs of an unborn child.

Andrew Pierce writes of Elton John's young sons:

"...perhaps it would have been wise to protect the boys from the ferocious spotlight that showbiz celebrity attracts."

Why, so the Daily Mail's legion of paparazzi photographers would have to work a bit harder to hunt them out with that ferocious spotlight?

Perhaps it doesn't feel like a proper story unless somebody had to lurk in a car park outside a young girl's gym class to get the photos. Maybe Elton John turning up at a party with his son for an hour or so to meet his uncle Bono removed the thrill of the chase for the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail is certainly no stranger to publishing photos of this tot who it now wants protected from the "ferocious spotlight" of celebrity. In fact, they have run hundreds of photos over the past two years, including long lens photos taken across airport runways and pictures taken while the child was playing on the beach and even sleeping in his carry cot.

For more, see:
The Daily Mail turns the creepiness up a notch

Comments

[Ackee123blog]

In yesterday's Mail story about Mo Farrah, where they mocked an ill-informed US interviewer who didn't know who Mo was, they state:

"A clearly perplexed Farah, 29, who broke the British half-marathon record with his time of 1 hour and 59 seconds replied: ‘Sorry?’..."

The British record is under 1 hour. Even I've beaten the time of 1 hour and 59 seconds.

So an article ridiculing a reporter for not knowing the facts contains a basic factual error in the opening paragraphs.

[Fishlegs]

You've presumably beaten 1hr 59 minutes, not 1:00:59?