The easily 'outraged' are enjoying the latest music video from Miley Cyrus called Adore You
Supposedly even the singer's own fans have joined the backlash against her latest raunchy video, branding it gross', sick' and pornographic'.
The former Disney star has been accused of cynically exploiting' her hordes of teenage fans by releasing an X-rated video of herself on Christmas Day simulating masturbation to the sound of her new single Adore You.
It has prompted one of the Government's main whingers about online child safety, the secretary of the Children's Charity Commission John Carr, to call for immediate action to ensure such videos have 18+ age ratings. He spouts:
Lots of children and young teenagers will be browsing the internet with the tablets and mobile phones they have been given for Christmas. And one of the first things they will have stumbled across on Boxing Day is this explicit video. Instead of
being freely available online it should be hidden behind age-filters.'
Pippa Smith of Safer Media, a campaigner against violence, sex and strong language in the media, called the video a new low' in teenage pop culture.
Meanwhile the video is proving very popular on YouTube with 15 million views. Hardly sounds like a fan backlash.
Beyonce has released her latest album by uploading tracks and videos straight to iTunes, claiming she wants to speak directly to her fans with no filter .
The Daily Mail blows an inevitable fuse saying:
Beyonce faced a backlash on social networking sites over vile lyrics and pornographic videos on her new album released on Friday, to the surprise of her fans
But later on the Daily Mail changes tack and admits that the her 'vile lyrics and pornographic videos' are actually immensely popular:
The singer's surprise album launch brought down website as millions of fans rushed to download her latest work with 80,000 copies selling in three hours.
Vivienne Pattison, of pressure group Mediawatch-UK, said:
This is such a shame to see because Beyonce didn't get to where she is by jumping on the same bandwagon as Rihanna and people like that who we expect to be explicit and controversial.
She was the one we always thought we could count on to set a good example and keep producing music with powerful messages that empowered women and girls. And I would have thought that a star of her magnitude wouldn't need to do something like
She has sold out and it's really sad. Like it or not Beyonce is a role model and she needs to take responsibility for that. Especially as a mother herself, it's very surprising that she would do this.
This is now on YouTube and children can see it. It's not like parents can protect their children by not buying the album. It's there, on the internet, for anyone to access and as a parent that is incredibly worrying.
The Daily Mail kindly points out the best bits to be outraged at:
Among the most shocking of the videos is Partition, in which Beyonce cage dances for her husband, 44-year-old rapper Jay-Z, before writhing around on the floor in her underwear.
In another song, called Blow, she describes being in a state of heightened sexual arousal. In the accompanying video she is joined by a troupe of nearly naked female dancers. One woman wears only a pair of knickers and stars on her breasts while
others simulate lap dances with male performers.
Pippa Smith of Safermedia said she was shocked at the irrational decision to expose the child to the eyes of strangers on the internet. She said:
To have her own daughter is a bit beyond the pale, no one in their right mind would do that. She's far too young and Beyonce is exposing her to the views of all sorts of strangers which isn't safe online, what with all the worry about online
It's a very, very stupid thing to do and not rational at all. My view would be that the whole album should be banned. Even with age ratings it would still circulate round the playground and it's sheer exploitation.
It just doesn't seem right. You get these beautiful young singers with amazing voices who start out squeaky clean and get a makeover and become vamps. And it is such a shame.
The Daily Mail is thankfully providing a little hype for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Surely the film makers are appreciative as otherwise the film seems to have proven very uncontroversial compared with the previous film. the
Daily Mail writes:
With a public execution, a violent beating and frenzied animals, it hardly sounds like ideal entertainment for children. But film censors appear to think otherwise -- granting The Hunger Games: Catching Fire a 12A rating, which means it
can be seen by under-12s if they are with an adult.
In one scene viewers witness a man being flogged and whipped by soldiers and are shown his wounded and bloodied back. Later, an elderly man is clubbed by two soldiers and publicly executed by a gunshot to the head.
The BBFC passed the film 12A for moderate violence and threat and infrequent strong language .
Vivienne Pattison, of the morality campaign group Mediawatch-UK spouted:
The problem with this particular film is that it originates from a book designed for children. Success: The blockbuster has made Miss Lawrence a household name. But critics blast the appeal to children
And there is a very big difference between reading a gory image on the page than burning it into the retinas of young children watching it on the big screen in the cinema.
Although the rating suggests there may be some adult scenes there is still little guidance, and there is nothing in place to stop parents or guardians from taking children as young as six or seven to the cinema to see the film.
The story environment at times is quite realistic and therefore the horrific violence is glamorised.
In a society in which children are exposed to so much violence and adult imagery we should be working to protect youngsters from further exposure in films and games. We don't need to terrify children to entertain them.
Pippa Smith of the religious morality campaign group, Safer Media said:
The film industry puts too much responsibility on parents. It isn't fair they should have to make the decision whether they take their child or not when the guidelines are so vague. Classification on films needs to be much stricter.
Fans of family-friendly TV series Doc Martin turned against the programme's makers after a violent car crash formed a plot twist in the latest instalment of the usually sedate show.
Many of the six million viewers -- including children -- were left horrified after Doc Martin's wife was unexpectedly hit by a car, prompting many to vent their distaste on social networking sites.
The Daily Mail reported a few viewer comments that hardly pass muster as 'outrage', eg:
I wasn't expecting that! Not sure my nerves can take it!
Meanwhile TV campaigners whinged that the car crash twist in the episode of Doc Martin was inappropriate for a series that has a reputation for offering inoffensive content suitable for children, even though it was shown after the 9pm watershed.
Pippa Smith, co-chairman of campaign group Safermedia, spouted:
It was far too graphic even if it was on at 9pm. We also know that children will be watching.
It is not the sort of thing you would expect from this series and seems to be following a recent trend towards harder more unpleasant story lines as we have seen in the normally gentle Downton Abbey.
This is not entertainment.
And Vivienne Pattison, director of MediaWatch, urged broadcasters to consider using warnings ahead of unusually graphic scenes.
Rihanna faced an extra- ordinary backlash last night after even her fans branded her latest video obscene , vile and pornographic .
Hundreds took to social networking sites to tell the singer that she should be ashamed of herself over the X-rated images in Pour It Up.
'Hundreds' may have complained but this nothing given that 17.5 million have watched the video on YouTube.
The video was originally posted by Rihanna on Vevo, a video sharing site, but was banned due to its explicit content. The site has since reinstated it.
The Daily Mail lavishes praise on the video:
It features pole dancers, strippers and lewd dance moves including twerking , a particularly provocative hip-thrusting dance.
Rihanna spends most of the video dressed in nothing but a jewel-encrusted bikini and platformed stiletto heels. She sings about strip clubs, alcohol and money and is seen gyrating and sliding provocatively down a chair.
Miranda Suit, pro-censorship campaigner for Safermedia lauded the video:
[Rihanna's] crude, tasteless and explicit dancing, combined with the money-focused lyrics, are telling all her fans -- many of them still children -- that it is good for women and girls to sell their body, and right for men and boys to see women
purely as a sexual commodity.
Rihanna has sold out completely to the commercialisation and objectification of women's bodies and their sexuality. And now she's promoting it to girls and boys.
She urged websites such as YouTube to ban such videos, adding: Parents want to know that their children are going to be safe online.
And of course the Daily printed plenty of pictures highlighting all the sexiest bits of the video.
The BBC Trust has reported on a complaint about Holby City:
BBC One, 18 September 2012, 8pm
The complainant objected to the use of the word shagging and the phrase cut his balls off during an episode of Holby City, broadcast before the 9pm watershed.
The complainant said that this language was sexually explicit and inappropriate when children might be watching. The Committee concluded:
that some viewers might find the use of this particular language offensive, but Holby City is a well-established drama dealing with contemporary life and covering challenging themes of hospital life, both on the ward and
in the staff's personal lives.
that regular viewers of this drama serial would not have found the use of the word shagging or the phrase cut his balls off unacceptable in this particular context.
that Holby City starts an hour before the watershed, when viewers are aware that not all programming is suitable for younger children.
that parents and carers share responsibility with the broadcaster to decide what is suitable for their children to view.
The complaint was not upheld.
The Daily Mail and its board of sound bite censors have picked up that "not all [pre-watershed] programming is suitable for younger children":
But the corporation's governing body has now confessed, for what appears to be the first time, that not all programming shown an hour before the watershed is suitable for younger children - prompting experts to warn that this could signal the
end of the 9pm threshold.
With predictable Daily Mail bollox, the 'experts' turn out to be the perennial nutters, Vivienne Pattison of MediaWatch-UK and Miranda Suit of the christian moralisers, Safermedia.
Pattison spouted that the BBC Trust's decision not to uphold the complaint meant parents could no longer trust that their children are safe from explicit material:
I'm really shocked that they have done this. According to their own broadcasting code the 9pm watershed signals the beginning of the transition towards more adult material so by this reckoning, what is it?
Eight o'clock? Half past seven? Is that the beginning of the transition?
There are so many tens of thousands of parents who actually consider that the watershed is really helping them protect their children. But if we're going to see broadcasters themselves undermining that protection then I think we'll have a real
SIR -- We want to see an immediate end to all advertising aimed at children of primary school age and younger. We have sleepwalked into a situation where the advertising industry, worth £12 billion a year in Britain alone,
is allowed to turn techniques designed to manipulate adult emotions and desires on to children as young as two or three. This is wrong.
Almost all children under 11 depend on their parents for money. So advertising makes heavy use of "pester power", as it is more effective than targeting parents directly. Yet a civilised society should require
advertisers to sell to parents, not to children. When children are learning about the cost of material things, and about managing small quantities of money, they should be free to do so without the pressures put on them by advertising.
As things stand, we are in danger of turning out young consumers rather than young citizens -- people who define themselves more by what they buy than by what they can contribute to society. Children should be free to
channel their energies into forming friendships, discovering their talents and unleashing their imaginations; things that cost little but whose value is immeasurable.
Bans on advertising aimed at young children are already working in places such as Sweden, Quebec and Greece. It's time for a similar ban here.
Jonathan Kent, Co-founder, Leave Our Kids Alone
Rupert Read, Co-Founder, Leave Our Kids Alone
Bel Mooney, Writer
George Monbiot, Author, journalist and campaigner Natalie Bennett, Leader, Green Party of England and Wales
Caroline Lucas, Green MP
Sue Palmer, Author, 'Toxic Childhood'
Claude Knights FRSA, Director of Kidscape
Pippa Smith, Co Chairman, Safermedia
Miranda Suit , Co Chairman, Safermedia
And many others
Comment: I Have No Time For Fucking Self Serving Middle Class Authoritarians Posing As Liberals