The Daily Mail Vs Ofcom: TVOD

Brilliant column by Charlie Brooker in The Guardian today, as per.
'If the Daily Mail is so worried about the sexualisation of children, all they have to do is hit 'delete'
'Starlets and sex, sex and starlets – all of it on plain view on the Daily Mail website which, to the best of my knowledge, has no age restrictions in place'
"Last year, outraged by Christina Aguilera and Rihanna's raunchy pre-watershed dancing on The X Factor, [The Daily Mail] ran a fuming article accompanied by shocking pictures of the most extreme bits, which helped fuel thousands of complaints.
"Later, Ofcom agreed that the routines were 'at the limit of acceptability', but went on to say the images in the Mail article were 'significantly more graphic and close-up than the material broadcast and had been taken from a different angle to the TV cameras... Readers would have been left with the impression that the programme contained significantly more graphic material than had actually been broadcast'..."
So the Mail are hypocrites - who knew?
And yes, the piece is fucking hilarious.
No wonder it's the (second) most popular story on The Guardian website right now.
However Steve Hewlett has the sinister story that lies behind this story over in MediaGuardian today;
'Why the Daily Mail has it in for Ofcom'
"This ongoing spat boils down to the Mail's hostility to regulation – something the paper may receive more of from the PCC"
In fine, the Mail wants Ofcom gone as it fears regulation and restrictions of its own online video content.
Oops!

• A very interesting recent post on The Media Blog about how the Mail tries to increase traffic to its website by running endless stories about American celebrities; 'Rihanna or the Queen: Who does the Daily Mail prefer?'

Update: Christopher Woolard from Ofcom writes for MediaGuardian on the Bailey Report and the TV watershed...