Has the media become too judgemental?
When it comes to fashion at Ascot, there will always be critics in the media who are waiting to name and shame someone.
This year was no exception as Royal-watchers came out in force yesterday to catch a glimpse of the Queen and her family as they enjoyed a day out together at Royal Ascot, but it was princesses Beatrice and Eugenie who caught much of the attention, but for the wrong reason.
The two sisters opted for different looks, but neither seemed to appease the sharp-tongued lashings from the British media and public on social media.
‘While Kate, and Sophie looked chic in elegant summer gowns, Princess Eugenie missed the mark in an unflattering black dress’ according to the Daily Mail.
‘The 27-year-old’s black fit and flare dress, with intricate floral embellishment, did little to flatter her hourglass frame.’
While some loved their look, others branded them dreadful and The Daily Mail even went as far as to call Eugenie “frumpy”.
What are your views? Has the world become too judgemental, especially now with social media? Is it right to try to humiliate someone who wears something you wouldn’t? Or is this freedom of speech and opinion a true reflection of our society today?
What are your views?
We'd love to hear your comments
Log in to comment
You need to be logged in to interact with Silversurfers. Please use the button below if you already have an account.
LoginNot a member?
You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!
JoinCommunity Terms & Conditions
Content standards
These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.
You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.
Contributions must:
be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
Contributions must not:
contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
Nurturing a safe environment
Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.
We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!
stopped buying my daily newspaper years ago because of all the lies being printed. and stories exaggerated beyond reasonable means. I doubt though that my contribution will be missed. If it wasn't for 'legal costs' I am sure more people would sue them for defamation or libel......... But on second thoughts !! A lot of the so called 'celebs' of today look upon any sort of publicity as 'good' publicity.
I have had first had first hand experience of the media intruding on ordinary and honest peoples lives just to get a headline. That does not serve the public interest only their readership and certainly does not help check or balance anything in society.
Many posts on silver surfers refer to articles read in the papers and the fact that we are free to openly discuss our opinions should be appreciated
Do we not have a press to hold government, the Police and Civil Service to account? Is it not the place of the press to criticise these organs of state, to expose wrong doings and short comings? To expose unhealthy alliances and dubious foreign connections? If these matters are confirmed in a court of law then it is for the court to pass judgement, not the press.
I was particularly incensed these last few weeks with the Daily Mail's vilification of Corbyn. It was nothing short of character assassination. As Jeanmark said, cruel and designed to cause pain. The Mail set itself as judge and jury, convicting as in a private trial. That was judgemental. Tried without a defence counsel and without a voice.
Whilst I'm most certainly not a Corbyn supporter, he did not deserve the Mail's treatment of him. They acted as his judges, and their verdict was unsafe to say the least. But, as Wilf so rightly says, Corbyn has the recourse to a court of law. If he goes down that road, which I doubt, damages would be well in six figures.
Historically, the press exposes untoward doings, they are investigated and if genuine tried in a court of law. It is not the role of the press to make a judgement because even that word judgement implies the execution of a judgement even before it has been tried before a court.
Thus the media must be critical, but create it's own judgements, no!
Oh, and I do so wish Andrew would arrange a decent job for his girls, and a stylist. The column yardage spent on these two is so unreasonable, and without any result!
Interesting that the media rarely comment on what men are wearing so why are women always 'picked' on?
I fail to understand why people of privilege should expected to be treated with such disdain but those 'below' them must always be shown respect.