violetta_crisis (violetta_crisis) wrote,
violetta_crisis
violetta_crisis

There's really no excuse for this.

There doesn't seem to be an evil right-wing agenda to this so I'm taking it as evidence of massive staff cuts, overwork, lack of proof reading, lack of interest on one's own output and also general rubbishness. From the Daily Mail website today, linking to this story, by a journalist who's not quite as ignorant as whoever typed out that title:



1. It's just a long red dress. It's absolutely nothing like what you're comparing it to, as shown by your own pictures.

2. It's "Jessica Rabbit", as in "Mrs Jessica Rabbit", married to Roger Rabbit. That woman there, in the picture in the middle of the blasted story, is clearly not a rabbit. If in doubt, look for these:




3. I would have been interested in the dresses anyway. They're nice dresses in a variety of styles and I sometimes like to look at dresses I can't afford and wouldn't be able to walk in anyway. You could have attracted someone who is not part of your regular readership. So why did you have to go and make it crap? Do you hate your job that much?

Tags: acquired tastes, bad reporting, lady-girls, the papers
Subscribe

  • My Life: The Soundtrack

    Technically I don't have time for this but I have two flimsy justifications to hand: 1. I'm making pea soup with dried peas that are... 6 years past…

  • Who cares who was protesting?

    I'm not particularly impressed with this BBC story on the events in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester today. For a start, they've given all readers a…

  • Announcing...

    ...this year's winner of the Clumsiest Headline Award, with an additional honorable mention in the Articles with a Pro-Death Bias category:…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments