Ian Burrell
Ian Burrell edits the Media Weekly pages of The Independent.
The Daily Mail's high-profile columnist Jan Moir this afternoon took the highly unusual step of issuing a statement in an attempt to defuse the fury of respondents to the paper's website following a column published this morning on the death of the pop star Stephen Gately.
Moir's article was widely seen as an outspoken attack on gay lifestyles and civil partnerships. Hundreds of protesters flooded the Mail's website and more than 1,000 complaints were lodged at the Press Complaints Commission.
In a statement hurriedly prepared this afternoon, Moir claimed it had never been her intention to cause offence and claimed that the protest was a "heavily orchestrated Internet campaign" and that it was "mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones".
Her words are hardly likely to satisfy her critics and in particular gay rights organisations after she concluded the original article with the reflection that "under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see."
In her statement, released by the Mail's PR company, Brown Lloyd James, Moir stated:
"Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions. However, the point of my column -which, I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read - was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all.
"Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death - out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger - did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.
"The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned.
"On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships - the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting - have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.
"In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones."
Advertisement
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
cogitodexter : Now there's a non-apology if ever I saw one... [+0] - martynnorris : Jan Moir [+2]
- dungeekin : A complete non-apology.... [+0]
- getmilesaway : (no subject) [+2]
- alicemgib : (no subject) [+0]
- colesstuff : Was an apology needed? [+4]
- ludovicah : Moir's apology (also posted to the Press Gazette) [+2]
- ramtops : (no subject) [+0]
- gerriparker : oh FFS [+0]
- lovelybug : (no subject) [+0]
- mordicai : (no subject) [+0]
- thelzdking : Daily Mail columnist is also hateful moron... [+0]
- trizia : (no subject) [+0]
- bemused2 : hedonistic moir kills gately [+0]
- littleorangecat : (no subject) [+0]
- steph_lb : Oh dear, so really not an apology at all! [+0]
- loveablelefty : Why Bring Up The Sex [+0]
- frwilliams : Accused of bigotry by Daily Mail readers! [+0]
- ciorstaidh : (no subject) [+0]
- paulomara : Mischevious ? [+0]
- stryngbass : Heavily Orchestrated? [+0]
- linni_loda : (no subject) [+1]
- aeka : (no subject) [+0]
- vgnwtch : (no subject) [+0]
- liketinkiwinki : Jan Moir [+0]
- ciaran_chayne : (no subject) [+0]
- grocko : aaah - but she isn't a journalist is she? [+0]
- hzle : Has everyone gone crazy? [+1]
- wildewood2 : What ever happened to the right to an opinion. In support Of Jan Moir [+3]
- bernieszu : admission of journalistic incompetence [+0]
Syndicate
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
As for 'orchestrated campaigns' - if the Internet is 'orchestrated' then she belongs with moon-landing conspiracy theorists. This is spontaneous word-of-mouth fury at someone who, whether she admits it or not, is showing every sign of bigoted homophobia and certainly revels in prurience and innuendo.
That wasn't an apology, that was just digging herself deeper into a hole of her own making. Sorry Ms Moir, you're going to have to do better than that.
Sadly, it seems the lady has attitudes and views more suited to 1949 than 2009.
Dungeekin
This whole furore just goes to show that proper journalism is dead and buried, in this world of celebrity and instant media. Papers need to resort to more extreme measures to sell their numbers, and drive online advertising revenue. It is interesting to note that after the outcries, advertising was removed from the page of the article in question, the title was changed and the article itself was edited to remove some more libellous aspects of the piece.
Jan Moir is nothing more than a bitter old gossip-monger who is craving attention. I hope to heck that it isn't the same Jan Moir who won awards with the Telegraph for her food pieces.
ps I hope your second paragraph doesn't refer to The Independent.
It absolutely does not refer to The Independent, I am a fan and enjoy reading the unbiased and thoughtful articles that are written in the paper, although I have to say, and I hope you don't hold this against me, that I do prefer The Times! It refers more to the red-tops, and the black-tops that are trying to join those ranks of sensationalism in their journalistic policies. There is a very interesting sub-story to all of this about the nature of today's media and how news is often reported without full editorial checks, due to the nature of today's instant media, 24-hour news, world. Made perfectly evident in the 2-hour chasing of a balloon live on US networks!
Open only insomuch as a black hole is open, sucking all light and hope out of anything nearby.
"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships."
What about the happy-ever-after myth of marriage?
"Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this."
So the coroner was wrong to declare that a pulmonary odoema caused by a coronary arrest was the cause of death? That is, and is widely accepted as, a natural cause of death.
Your conclusions are the conclusions of a man who believes the stereotypes of homosexual behaviours, and have no place in this world whatsoever.
Yet from this Ms Moir concocts a festering, curtain twitching, head shaking monstrosity of innuendo and repugnance, publishes this for the world to see and then cries "Unfair" when everyone is genuinely horrified at her insensitivity of timing, her palpable prejudice and her obscene twisting of the facts to give the Mail's demographic readership the frisson of misanthropy they love to ingest with their toast and coffee of a morning. Shame on you Moir, and shame on you for your piteous mewing about "orchestrated campaigns" etc Its not how it is. You are simply outnumbered by people who have chosen NOT to be judgemental haters of people on grounds of sexuality. Apologise.. and then go find a job you are more suited to
You keep digging, my dear - hopefully nobody will ever commission you to write another piece.
How dare readers take her at what she says. Those are just words! Words she said.
If he had an underlying medical condition ANYTHING could have exacerbated it, you foul gobshite of an excuse for a human!
From this I conclude (using skills learned at the Jan Moir school of investigative journalism) that Moir terrorised Gately to his death during a hedonistic drink binge and was so shitfaced that she later forgot all about it. Mail columnists - depraved characters, all.
I'm too angry to post a coherent comment.
She says how she in fact she liked Stephen Gately... funny I seem to remember a comment on him being the posh spice of Boyzone and not being able to sing? oh I am sorry for mistaking that for being something other than a complement!
She then continues to say how she only meant to raise questions on a suspicious death? Darling I am afraid; as many many people will tell you THERE WAS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT IT.
Oh Jan talking about dealing with issues with un-due haste? Like slandering a poor man, innocent and not yet cold in his grave- in fact not even buried perhaps?
I would take the hint Moir- no one likes you, you in fact should probably quit your job now before your fired to the sound of cheers.
And as for trying to say that you are not a homophobe or a bigot... well my love I am afraid you have thoroughly managed to unconvince us all of that!
I think it best for everyone if you just piss off somewhere remote so you don't end up digging yourself further into what already seems to be a massive hole!
For what it's worth, I take a dim view of adultery - whether condoned or otherwise, but I can't think of a single way in which it might have contributed to the sudden death of a helathy young man. (Perhaps my mind just isn't as filthy as hers).
And of course she has to bring the sex into it, otherwise it would be harder to claim "it's a gay thing",
Intellectually (and morally) she's on a par with people who blame earthquakes and hurricains on the mores of those who get in their way.
Still, being a liberal, I hope she isn't swept away by a freak flood of sewage.
I'd be appalled that the Daily Mail prints such tripe as your column of 16.10.09, much less pays you for it, except ya know...it's the Daily Mail, so my expectations were already at a low.
Just keep digging, Ms. Moir, and maybe we can even get the torches out for bigot-baiting *vbg*
The more you say, Ms Moir, the more ill-informed and ignorant you look.
Sadly I did read your article in full and its the last Daily Mail article I will be reading. so as a 23 year old that used to buy the Daily Mail 4-5 times a week, congratulations on loosing your paper my 50 years of readership.
Having always got away with something doesn't mean you always will.
Relating the death of Gately and Mcgee is just ridiculous and intentionally inciting a negative view of the gay community by lumping two tragic events together.
This "journalist" should be dismissed for breaching articles 1 2 3 5 and 12 of the code.
If she truly wasn't being homophobic, then what was her article trying to address? That having an adventurous sexual lifestyle led to Gately's death (her so-called proof for said 'deviancy' is woefully insufficient)? That smoking cannabis led to his death (despite a medical autopsy proving that it was natural causes and could happen any time)? That civil unions are problematic and will lead to bad lifestyles and death by heart problem (nonsense, nonsense, nonsense!)?
It was a very badly written article and it read more like someone trying to write something exciting and unusual but did not having the ability (or facts) to support it.
Making a mistake is acceptable. Being incapable of truly apologising for that mistake and trying to blame someone else for their problems is not.
As things stand her opinions (as expressed in her column) have been proven worthless and I hope that The Daily Mail will see her as liability now that she's upset quite a few of their advertisers and will soon be dispensing of her services. (I somehow can't imagine the Mail caring one hoot that it will have offended Stephen Gately's family, friends, fans, and the gay community, or else the article would never had been published in the first place. But it will very much care about that advertising money.) I shan't hold my breath on that one though.
[*Oh, was I making gross assumptions there and using hateful stereotyping? Well, if it's good for enough for Jan Moir then it must be OK for us to play that game too. No? No, you're right it isn't.]
"under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see"
..is not homophobic. It's talking about celeb drink/drugs binge lifestyles. I'm disappointed in her for writing the article (are editors to blame, was there more sense in the original?) She's not normally stupid. But it is ill-informed and not deliberately hate-stirring.
Would there be the same reaction if she'd written in the Independent? How did the Mail become the new 3rd Reich? I never buy it and rarely read any of it, but the sanctimonious people who write in it have one thing in common with Indie readers/writers: they don't want to think about things before judging them.
Understanding bad - soapboxes good, apparently.
What? aside from the whole tone of the article? And the sentence you quoted already?
OK:
"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy."
(did you get that? Not just plain ordinary sleazy - but more than a little sleazy.)
and here's another:
"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael."
Would there been the same reaction if she had written in the Independent?
Yes. And it would have been the same reaction if she'd written for any other paper.
When a relative/loved one of yours dies we'll try and get Jan Moir to write the obituary for you - you'll like that - and she'll be desperate for the work by then.
Welcome to the 20th century. It's called feedback. We're all exercising our right of opinion here.
I only read two articles on Stephen Gately's death so maybe I'm missing something. One of those was how the coroner said he died of natural causes (heart defect). So why on earth are you saying that we all know he didn't? And why are you presuming that we all know this? After reading the coroner's report, I'm supposed to magically deduce something sordid happened and the coroner lied about it? Wow. Seriously? I'm to believe the tabloids over a coroner now?
I've lost count the number of times my friends bunked over with other friends after a night of clubbing without sex being involved. I KNOW! Shocking stuff!
That aside: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? So what if he was having some happy threesome or if he had allowed his husband to get it on with someone else? So what if he had a few drinks or was partying? What is your (and Jan Moir's) point? That the sex killed him? The partying? The marijuana? Because you know better than the coroner, right? How did it tie in to civil union and gay rights, that Jan Moir brought up? People who are single don't die like that? People who are married? People who are straight? What??
If it isn't a bad article, I don't know what is. I don't know why I'm supposed to applaud her for that just because she wrote something different (I can write something different too, if facts are something I can discard willy nilly).
I appreciate your reply. Firstly because it was balanced logical and non vitrolic. I expected some pretty vigorous responses to my post. I don't deny anyone their opinion, be it negative or positive. I never said that everyone who didnt agree with Jan should shut up. Its just that the same people that get so raged up against this article seem to be so quiet on the thousands of other occasions when a person is torn down in the press and their lives destroyed. Michael Barrymore being just one example, countless others.
I suppose I just don't like to see someone villanised for standing by a viewpoint. OK so her's was a pretty public airing of her views but is that not her job? I don't believe that she was advocating hate.
As far as the coroners report goes, what I gleaned from it was that he was saying that whatever killed Stephen was a result of his own body and not a 3rd party.i.e he wasn't murdered. 'Natural causes' can include dying from choking on vomit. Its also a fact that excess alcohol and drugs can make the heart fail especially if theres an underlying condition. I don't think and never implied that sex had anything to do with his death. It wasn't sex that killed him. I also don't think Jan did either. I think she meant the general circumstances. Of course I don't know better than the Coroner, I would never try to say otherwise. I'm prepared to be wrong about that and if I am, it was an unfortunate time for him to die of an intrinsic heart condition.
Is it so foolish to suggest that he may not have died if someone had been beside him at the time, when he was in difficulty? And if they weren't, why was that?
Where were they? The prima facia evidence suggests that there was something untoward going on. Its not my place to judge what exactly that was. I suppose it comes down to ones definition of untoward. To me this is not a matter of being gay or straight, about civil unions or whatever, thats Jans argument not mine. I just wish the guy had gone to bed at 11pm, read a bit and gone to sleep with his husband. Then we wouldn;t be having this discussion. But that not life, right?
T
As you said, it's a very public airing. So a public response isn't unusual, regardless of if it's her job or not. Politicians, newsreaders, journalists, anyone in the spotlight doing their job still receives public feedback.
In the article I read that reported it (not a tabloid), they said he died of natural causes from pulmonary oedema, which is neither caused by alcohol or marijuana (what the coroner said, I'm not a doctor). Named witnesses said he wasn't throwing up, passing out drunk when he left the place.
To be honest: Yes, it is pretty foolish to suggest that. Now, you're playing the 'if' game, which doesn't work in reality. See, going along the 'if' lines, I think it would be more likely that if he was asleep next to his husband and died peacefully in his sleep (as the coroner said), then his husband mightn't even wake up. But who really knows what might have happened?
Are people supposed to glue themselves to their loved ones, with their fingers to their pulse point, no toilet breaks or sleep, in case their partners die of a genetic disease? To imply that his partner or his friend or his second partner or whoever that person was have to explain to the public why they weren't right next to him when he died, weren't right next to him every minute of that night, is pretty ridiculous.
Personally, I really don't see how the evidence so far would suggest anything untoward. But I know some people will see something there, but even so, I stand by my point: How is it relevant? The three of them were all in the same house, that third fella having gone home with them. Anything that happened in that house, happened with the consent of all three of them. Even if they all had sex or just two of whichever pairing did, it still doesn't relate to how he died. As you said, the sex didn't kill him. Yet it still became a big deal (without evidence) in Jan Moir's article.
You might not care about him being gay or straight, civil unions or whatever. But Jan Moir brought those up as main points in her article. So clearly she does. And I don't see how anyone can support that thinking.
And if she really doesn't mean it that way, then she has written that article badly. Which she should own up to instead of blaming everyone else for having a reaction.
I feel that Stephen Gately's personal life is his own. What he chose to do before his death, as long as all parties were consenting adults, was part of living. The sleaziness only came into it when a journalist decided she could make it so.