Samantha Brick will no longer tolerate your hateful and hurtful comments!
Could it just be that the Daily Mail is now taking steps to deflate some of the antagonism shown towards one of their star contributors, Ms Sarah Brick as more and more readers pile on the site and let the journal know how they feel about Ms Brick’s article (to date 5717) since it first came out this past Monday? Or worse how they feel about the Daily Mail for sponsoring Ms Brick’s article?
It is by now no secret that Ms Brick’s article extolling her miffed disposition as to why so many women fear her pristine beauty (apparently it’s her attitude as opposed to her non existent beauty that seems to be what has rubbed most up the wrong way) has generated much fervor and ridicule on the web.
Indeed most commentators have been patronizing towards Ms Brick, some a bit rude and cheeky, whimsical and yes some quite vulgar, bordering on the personal, and trifle/very venomous. If you get my drift. Oh dear.
That said, this morning, a cursory look on our website brought the following comment to my attention. I have screen grabbed it here below.(you can also find it appearing here as well)
Now before I proceed let me say from the outset I do concur that any journal has the right (us included) to deny those comments or commentators whom the journal or its editors deem to be intrusive, derogatory, inflammatory or personally venomous and bereft of what many would metaphorically guise as good dinner company.
It could well be that the above commentator who’s ip address and email address I have not disclosed could have grossly imposed themselves and failed to act with decorum that some of us would wish to see on the web. Or it could simply also be that the Daily Mail has had enough of commentators who it deems to be what they consider to be incendiary or simply too colorful (for a lack of a better word). Or it could also just be their way to turn away those at the gate that it deems to be leaving or expressing thoughts or ideas that it can not find the courage to sanction or no longer fathom.
Could it be then that the Daily Mail is now denying those to express themselves for simply failing to hold a view that bodes well with the outlet’s editors? And what are we to think when one of the largest media outlets in the world chooses to behave that way?
Then again who said a journal even has to provide a forum for readers to express themselves? Then again these are questions ultimately up to the journal’s editors and owners but one would be compelled to think that one should be brave enough to allow readers to express themselves no matter how scathing or duplicitous they find certain commentators and their comments from time to time to be (trust me I am talking from experience).
Assuming of course the above commentator was simply expressing himself and not instigating anything demeaning, legally defamatory or too inflammatory… I would hasten to wonder if the dailymail has been somewhat heavy handed in turning away this and I assume other readers, but then again the last time I looked on that web site most of their articles were quite inflammatory to begin with, including Ms Brick’s.