Jump to content
IGNORED

lack of watmm coverage of the royal birth


eugene

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I haven't been following this, but is the kid the moonchild or not? Is he a suitable host for Rex Mundi of The Outer Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entry in Marina Hyde's Lost In Showbiz blog on the Guardian's site is worth a read.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2013/jul/25/ok-magazine-tacky-royal-baby

 

 

As literally anyone will tell you, this should be the absolute happiest of times for this septic isle, with the royal nativity making all of us complete. How sad, then, that some simply refuse to be caught up in the hoopla that has attended the baby's birth, with TV presenter Katy Hill treasonably declining to get behind OK! magazine's Royal Baby Special.

Published the very day the Duchess of Cambridge left hospital, but obviously put together before, the magazine's cover leads with "Kate's Post-Baby Weight Loss Regime". Though not billed as a WORLD EXCLUSIVE in the manner of the publication's internationally hard-won interviews with third-tier Made in Chelsea stars, we learn that it is nonetheless an EXCLUSIVE. "OK! talks to Kate's trainer," the cover claims, and though they do nothing of the sort, I don't think we ought to be splitting hairs. "She's super-fit," the cover continues. "Her stomach will shrink straight back!"

As I say, this all prompted a furious tweet from Katy Hill, and her calls for a boycott of the mag garnered such online support that they forced a clarification from OK!'s parent company, Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell. Apparently, the cover has been "misunderstood", and criticism of Kate's appearance was "not intended".

Nor, indeed, were they accused of it. Still, bravo to them for non-apologising for something else entirely. Perhaps they could weigh in on slavery or the Mau Mau rebellion next week.

For a feel of what was intended, though, Lost in Showbiz has donned its rubber gloves and cut through the magazine's unsightly adipose tissue, in the hope of being able to free the svelte and self-respecting publication just bursting to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.