Lorraine Kelly Mentions Brenda In Her Column

A few Weeks ago Lorraine Kelly did a large 'piece' on Internet Trolls in her Saturday Column in 'The Sun'.

In it she was very unkind & misleading about Brenda & the content of her Tweets.

 Despite Brenda having died since then, Lorraine has mentioned her again in her Saturday 18th October Column in 'The Sun'.

She has done another 'piece' on Internet Trolling & in it she refers to Gerry & Kate McCann & Brenda:,

"I have had my share of trolls dipping their paws in poison and quivering with indignation every time I interview
Kate & Gerry McCann.

 And God knows that poor couple have been horribly vilified online and even accused of killing their daughter Madeleine.

Just weeks ago, Brenda Leyland apparently committed suicide after it was discovered she had sent a barrage of tweets criticising
Madeleine's mum and dad.

It was later reported she herself had received online death threats.

Her suicide was tragic and again illustrated how murky social media has become".

Thanks, hermes333.

Do I detect a modicum of backtracking by Kelly?
Well it's too damn late. Way, way too late.
The MSM trashed and hounded this poor woman, dead and alive, and showed themselves up for the pointless, gutless filth that they are.

Kelly should be looking at herself in a mirror and asking herself what effect her blind, total, oleaginous support for the McCanns has had upon this 7-year double-death tragedy.
If her IQ is up to the task for such an in-depth exploration, of course ......

LK: PRO MCCANN 'SUPPORTER'

"It was later reported she herself had received online death threats."
--------------------------------------------------

Must have 'run out of ink' before finishing the above sentence!

which, of course, should have actually 'read';

"It was later reported she herself had received online death threats, from another, avid, PRO MCCANN 'SUPPORTER' like MYSELF."

LORRAINE KELLY = PRO MCCANN 'SUPPORTER'

CINDY MARTIN (LIFE THREATENING, VILE, TROLL to BL) = PRO MCCANN 'SUPPORTER'

What do Lorraine Kelly and sender of death threats, to BL, Cindy Martin, have in 'common'?

RHETORICAL!

The idea of newspapers is to get a journalist to write columns for them, often controversial, often cruel in their descriptions of their chosen subject victims. And the idea of this is so that the readers respond on the letters page, which makes for good sales of the said newspapers. They never seem to have much of a problem in readers responding in such a way that the insults fly back at the journalist, so long as it is via their newspaper. After all the more controversial a journalist is, the more newspaper sales increase as readers often buy the newspaper to see who the chosen victim is in that particular week's issue.

In the Sunday Mercury there is a guy called George Tyndale who really knows how to insult a person or 2 or 3, just to get a response from the readership. And in the Birmingham Mail there is a lady called Maureen Messent who does the same. And you know when they've written a very insulting piece because the letters page next day is half full of responses from those who find their comments hurtful and offensive.

However, if the same readers go online, to Twitter for example, to vent their anger at the journalist, that's different. Then its trolling and criminal behaviour. Why?

LJC wrote:The idea of newspapers is to get a journalist to write columns for them, often controversial, often cruel in their descriptions of their chosen subject victims.  And the idea of this is so that the readers respond on the letters page, which makes for good sales of the said newspapers.  They never seem to have much of a problem in readers responding in such a way that the insults fly back at the journalist, so long as it is via their newspaper.  After all the more controversial a journalist is, the more newspaper sales increase as readers often buy the newspaper to see who the chosen victim is in that particular week's issue.

In the Sunday Mercury there is a guy called George Tyndale who really knows how to insult a person or 2 or 3, just to get a response from the readership.  And in the Birmingham Mail there is a lady called Maureen Messent who does the same. And you know when they've written a very insulting piece because the letters page next day is half full of responses from those who find their comments hurtful and offensive.

However, if the same readers go online, to Twitter for example, to vent their anger at the journalist, that's different. Then its trolling and criminal behaviour.  Why?

I made a similar post on another thread. The hyprocrisy of print "journalists" is abundant. Apparently you can be rude, insulting and make disparaging remarks in print and its OK but if you do the same on the internet it is "unacceptable trolling". Journalists no doubt would be up in arms if Mr Grayling proposed a 2 year prison sentence for print journalists making disparaging comments.

@ LJC
You ask 'why?' and it's a good question.
IMO it's because the traditional media is in terminal decline and will take any opportunity to wage war upon its successor, the internet, and the social media in particular.

Add the McCann case to the mix and the press has a double dilemma.
It dare not meander away from the Mitchell script and that means that an increasingly enlightened public (thanks to the net) is becoming increasingly frustrated and angry with the MSM's Jackanory stories re the McCanns. That makes them even less likely to buy papers which they perceive as purveyors of lies and spin.

They can't uninvent the internet and they can't break free from the perpetual threat of litigation from the McCanns and the sycophantic stance they have to take.
As my late mother would have said: "They're buggered all roads."

So they lash out and create scapegoats (or Folk Devils and Moral Panics, to quote sociologist Stanley Cohen's famous study) - even labelling what they must realise is a great part of their own dwindling readership as 'trolls' and 'abusers' because it's all they can do.
It's the tram line to hell, and they're stuck on it.