@Fad: It is interesting, absolutely. I enjoy how “public outrage” was suddenly not something Daily Mail had a monopoly on – but was used against them. I think my interest lies within that idea – that “public outrage” of the moral sort is no longer reserved for the right-wing but that liberals can use it as a tool too. The idea of “orchestration” says more about the Mail than anything else.

However, I do wonder if public opinion can now be dictated by Mr Brooker, Stephen Fry and Derren Brown?

Adorable, huh? Yup, my coolness is long gone..

The accusations of an agenda and an orchestrated campaign against her were inevitable, and while hive mind mentality was at least in part responsible for helping the story grow, I doubt the controversy would have been so great if there wasn’t some truth behind it. Like you, I read the story before the title was modified and before other newspapers had even noticed the fury, but it was so illogical and fallacious that I don’t understand how anybody can come out the other end without words like ‘homophobic’ and ‘idiot’ springing to mind.

Oh dear, my comment reads more like a blog entry. Adorable woollen top btw. ;)

I found the whole Moir thing just intolerable.

Re. FlashForward (which i keep calling ‘FastForward’): I got so bored after watching the pilot that I read the wikipedia entry for the book on which it is based. Interesting concept – horrid excecution. It keeps reminding me of Lost & Heroes – but only all the bad bits to those series.

@DK: Have we ever agreed on anything popculture bar Joss Whedon? Hmmm.. besides I’m only two episodes into True Blood.

@Paula: Poor Jack Davenport. His character reads like “they couldn’t get Hugh Grant, so they got me instead. Sorry”.

I tried to like Flash forward. I liked the idea of it but its so badly written that the characters are like cardboard cut outs.

Charlie Booker”s Guardian article is the best thing I’ve read in a while. The Daily mail is a sad and hateful rag.