Fire up the pitchforks.

I spotted this doing the rounds.

Wasn’t sure of it’s validity so I dug back to find the original article, which is here. If you don’t want to feed the DM’s links, it’s basically a typical tabloid photo-heavy “celebrity ventures outside with family” non-story. Pictured is Heidi Klum, her boyfriend, and her two kids (8 and 3).

The crux of the story seems to revolve around how Heidi’s clothes are “dowdy” (because she’s dressed to pick her kids up from class rather than to strut down a catwalk) and devotes paragraphs to what the kids are wearing. A typical photo caption reads: “All eyes on me: The eight-year-old showed off her best model walk through the parking lot.”

The icing on the cake though is the tagline in the article’s advert. “Mum’s not the only leggy beauty in the family.” This text doesn’t seem to appear in the main article but, helpfully, the DM are still advertising the article in their sidebar exactly as it appears in the picture above. Ie, it’s genuine.

They’ll no doubt be running a story tomorrow about how outraged they are about Jimmy Savile.

If you (and enough other people) ignore it, it will just go away.

See, now I’ve got to be outrage by something that never would have impinged on my life without you posting it here.

See, now I wouldnt have viewed them pics in any way sexual and even though you tried to point it out I still see nothing sexual in them..

In the eye of the viewer and all that I suppose.

Have you tried reading the words in my post as well as looking at the pictures?

Is it appropriate for a national newspaper to be referring to an eight year old girl as a “leggy beauty”?

Have you tried reading the words in my post as well as looking at the pictures?

Yes.. still see nothing sexual.. the young girl is showing her legs.. she could be seen as beautiful too.. but sexual? As I said.. I see nothing sexual in the pics or the comments.

It’s the daily mail…….

Leggy beauty is a term loaded with sexual implications whether you personally see it or not elzorillo.

Not the only time:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY[/video]

As I said.. I see nothing sexual in the pics or the comments.

So, you’re saying that you think it is appropriate for a national newspaper to be referring to an eight year old girl as a “leggy beauty”?

Maybe it’s just me that thinks it’s a bit creepy, then.

Maybe it’s just me that thinks it’s a bit creepy, then.

sorry.. I read that wrong

Maybe it’s just me that thinks it’s a bit creepy, then.

The whole paparazzi following celebs around trying to get the best upskirt photos thing is bloody creepy.. But it’s what their readers want apparently. So best let em get on with it.

[edited, cos he did]

Aaaaaarrrrrghh. It’s
PEADOGEDAN.

That’s a bit silly.

Indeed it is.

I think it’s cougargeddon on his high horse.

(I don’t really)

cougar, ignore them, I agree that the press farm often make mistakes and in this case think they could have worded it better.

My horse mad neighbour (neigh!) has referred to a horse in a field near us as a leggy beauty, should I be concerned?

What I do approve of is using screenshots as the OP has to allow us to bemoan the Daily Mail without actually driving traffic to their website. This is definitely a good thing.

Was it that woman off of Harry Potter who was talking recently about how the paparazzi were falling over each other to get “upskirt” shots from the the day she turned 18?

And can we just remember that the Daily Mail announced following the death of St. Diana of Kensington that they would no longer purchase or use paparazzi photos? Evil, hypocritical scum.

How old’s the horse?

Is the horse male or female?

More creepy is the fact you DO see something sexual in it fella.

He doesn’t, any more than I do, it’s the context that gives it that connotation.
But you obviously are oblivious to that. 🙄

I think it’s cougargeddon on his high horse.

Ah’m a geddin’ on my horse.

using screenshots … without actually driving traffic to their website.

That wasn’t accidental.

How old’s the horse?

*rubs jodhpurs*

another review of the story.
the media blog

Mum’s not the only leggy beauty in the family.

So, the 8 year old is beautiful too, and has long legs. Fail to see how that’s sexual unless you’re from one of those dodgy religions (and that’s a pleonasm if there ever was one) that required females to be covered heat to foot and hide away for the ‘dirty week’ once a month.

Some people also use the word ‘sexy’ when describing children (e.g. when commenting on a new dress, “Oh, very sexy”). But they also use the same word to describe a new MTB, car, gun, stereo etc. So once again, not actually anything to do with SEX at all.

I’m reminded of the media hysteria over some shop selling a kids bed called the ‘Lolita’ because of the famous novel where a grown man falls in love with a 12 year old girl.

Of course the media failed to note that Lolita is a genuine name, indeed, my last partner’s aunt was called Lolita.

how do we know mum hasn’t sanctioned it? you know, being famous is a job, innit? the whole thing is weird in my eyes, 8 yo or 38 yo

Sorry op but thats a load of shit.

Paedogeddon sums it up nicely

One could argue that it’s morally wrong to be taking photos of the children and splashing them in the media.

#prudetrackworld

The press complaints commission has an “editors code of practice committee” who produce and enforce an code of conduct for newspaper editors

In the editors code of conduct section 6v:
“Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life”.

The Mail publishes stories, pictures and strangely leering comments about how almost grown up the children of celebrities are all the time. Preferably pictures of their children in a bikini, and ideally 15 pictures where one would be too many.

The Chair of the Editors Code of Practice Committee is Paul Dacre, who looks exactly like editor of the Mail.