In today’s column, she calls herself a feminist because she frowns on “mumsy” types, yet didn’t want to get pregnant because she wanted to “keep her figure” and assumes the reason her friend went off the pill is because the husband had an issue with her looks. (Perhaps the issue in question was the friend’s self-esteem and well-being.) Looks are all important if you’re a woman, right?

Liz Jones; a figurehead for feminism that all young women can look up to.

To be as crass as Ms Jones herself; her sweeping statement advising men to be wary of women in their 30s and 40s for their capacity to steal their sperm and deceive them about wanting babies could be akin to a sweeping statement advising women to be wary of all men for their capacity to rape.

Obviously, Liz Jones’ personal history is unique – a marriage and a later relationship where the two parties want different things certainly pushes back the decision to get pregnant. As a successful career woman, surely the options weren’t limited to subterfuge? I wonder if she considered adoption, paying for IVF, or foster care and then raising the child independently. A daunting concept, of course, but not unprecedented or unachievable – particularly if her assumption was (as it appears to be in the article) that the father of her child wasn’t going to be around anyway.

What is interesting is that her article seems to be underpinned with a belief that the options available to careerist women are black and white: either focus on a career and forgo having a baby, or have a baby and forgo the career. I’m not certain this is the absolute case in today’s working environment, but that’s a whole separate can of worms to debate!

Suffice to say, why oh why did I read the article? All I’ve done, apart from be frustrated by the content itself, is to increase the traffic to the Daily Mail website (the irony of blogging about it is not lost on me, fear not). The newspaper’s editorial decision to encourage its writers to expose their darkest secrets and opinions to the public certainly guarantees high readership. I’d like to think it’s brave editorial guidance, but I suspect it’s just a numbers game.

Image via Wikipedia

Anyone who knows me knows I would watch football every waking hour of the day if I could, and the issues surrounding the sport come hand-in-hand with the talent and skill displayed on the football pitch. Racism has, quite rightly, changed over the years and several campaigns are working hard to eliminate this from the game. Yet two incidents over the past couple of weeks have insinuated that racism is still firmly ensconced in the game of football. Patrice Evra accused Liverpool striker Luis Suarez of using a “certain word at least 10 times” when his side, Manchester United, were held to a 1-1 draw against the Merseyside club on 15 October. The other incident at the forefront of football news is allegations that Chelsea’s captain, John Terry, made racist remarks to QPR‘s Anton Ferdinand, which he denies.

So while the battle to tackle racism in football – and in society (as anyone who watched BBC2’s Mixed Britannia will see) – has made significant progress, it’s still clear there is some way to go. If the Daily Mail’s article yesterday on these recent football racism rows (Football might not be perfect but it’s come a long way since racism in the 1970s) is anything to go by, we should all be grateful that racism isn’t as aggressive as it once was and it’s okay to do it now as people apologise for it.

In a multi-cultural society, it is absolutely unacceptable that a British publication can possible say that “every club seems to be promoting a kick racism out of football campaign, beyond the point of boredom”. Even worse is to tell Patrice Evra and Anton Ferdinand that “perhaps in this case you could just put up with it and get on with the game”. The UK is still in search of complete acceptance of all races, all nationalities, etc., and articles like this are not going to get us there!

Related articles

• England Captain Terry Denies Racism Claim (news.sky.com)

Made by Many has recently developed The Telegraph‘s new fashion website which includes a function that allows you to click through and instantly buy the lovely things they review. Although damaging to the purse strings – this is a brilliant move by The Telegraph.

I have watched with interest how this media business has embraced the web and social media. On the techy side – it established links with ‘in-crowd’ IT girl Hermoine Way last year and its journos are plugged right in to the ‘twitter’ community.

It is interesting to see how the different national newspapers are creating new audiences through their web properties. The Telegraph  has fashion and The Daily Mail online is now a mecca for celebrity gossip (yes I am a regular reader!). And for tech/ digital, Jemima Kiss and The Guardian is my first choice.

Made by Many has a lot of advice for media businesses that are attempting to update their  models and play in the modern world – the blog is well worth a read.

Tiger Woods - finding fulfillment at every step

Another day, another celebrity makes a fool of themselves. This time Tiger Woods has been a bit of a naughty boy allegedly knocking up at least 10 extramarital notches on his bedpost. Not great news then for Accenture, the global IT services company which has sponsored the professional golfer since 2003, featuring him in much of the company’s print, broadcast and digital adverting.

It’s not the first time that a celebrity has damaged a brand by doing or saying something a bit stupid and it won’t be the last. But sometimes it’s not just the advert that can get companies in hot water; it’s where the ad has been placed. Marks & Spencer discovered this earlier this year when the company quickly decided to pull it’s advertising from the Daily Mail’s website after users spotted it appearing alongside Jan Moir’s homophobic article about Stephen Gateley’s death.

Only time will tell if Accenture, Nike, Electronic Arts and the other brands that Tiger Woods represents will continue to back the star. But what’s clear is that businesses need a contingency plan in place to deal with the transgressions of celebrities.

New figures out show that the Mail is growing its digital readership faster than any other UK paper for the third month running.

So why is the Mail getting it so right? Is is translating its penchant for fearful news stories to the Internet age? Or is it being smart about how the content people want online is different, and it is doing a very good job of meeting that need? Probably the latter.

Plus its use of images, even oddities like this, has come on in leaps and bounds, making it a highly readable and engaging site.

Any brand owners who thought the Mail’s appeal was rather narrow, with the red-tops and broadsheets doing onlien better, had better think again.

Here’s a few of the most bizarre:

1. Twitter gives you cancer
   - All those hours sat indoors tweeting could increase your risk of cancer and damage your immune system by reducing the need to meet others face-to-face.
2. Twitter could give you Repetitive Strain Injury
   - Typing all those tweets could make your fingers go numb, leaving many users unable to inform their followers on Twitter that they are now suffering with RSI.
3. Twitter makes users more immoral
   -  Tweeting too fast gives you no time to think about how your tweets could affect others.
4. Lily Allen holds fancy dress party on Twitter
   - The singer uploads pics of herself dressed as a duck to make her followers smi-i-ile…
5. Students can’t do their work because of Twitter
   - Students are campaigning to stop Twitter fans from hogging university computers.
6. Ashton Kutcher becomes the world’s first Twitter millionaire
   - The actor becomes the first user with 1 million followers. Stephen Fry must be devastated.
7. The Guardian to be available only by Twitter
   - The newspaper raised a titter by announcing on 1st April that it planned to become the first newspaper in the world to be published exclusively via Twitter.
8. Keira Knightley hates Twitter
   - The actress just can’t stand the social networking site.
9. Moldovans turn to Twitter for information
   - A communications graduate has started translating tweets written in Romanian into English so that we can all sleep safely knowing what people are getting up to in Maldova.
10. Twitter harms children’s brains
    - Twitter can make kids more self centred by reducing their attention spans to such an extent that 140 characters is considered a big read.

Can you think of any more tall tales about Twitter?

Marina Hyde of The Daily Mail has published ‘Celebrity: How Entertainers Took Over The World And Why We Need An Exit Strategy’, a look at how celebrities’ Roles and Responsibilities have been expanded to include, amongst other things, negotiating with the extremists, holding Middle East peace summits and fixing refugee crises.

Seemingly there’s no situation that won’t benefit from the intervention of a beautiful person from the West coast. Jude Law has taken on the Taliban, Sharon Stone held a press conference with Shimon Peres, Richard Gere has – “speaking for the entire world” – pronounced on Palestine.

But none have yet been brave enough to tackle the global economic crisis. This recession demands celebrity interventions. The world needs to hear Geri Halliwell on collateralised debt obligations and a fired up Tom Cruise on bankers’ bonuses. Only celebrity can prevent recession from becoming depression.