The news that
Elton John and his partner
David Furnish have adopted a baby boy got page 1 and/or page 3 coverage in most national papers today.
It was treated quite straightforwardly by almost every title. By which I mean, in general, there was an absence of snide homophobic spin.
But there was a notable disconnect between the largely "neutral" newspaper coverage and online comments from their readers or, at least, their websites' visitors.
Note first the largely empathetic headlines.
Sir Elton is dad at 63 as surrogacy heralds change in his circle of life (
The Times);
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, hello nappies and sleepless nights (
Daily Telegraph);
You can tell everybody, this is our son: Elton John becomes a father at 63 (
The Guardian);
Sir Elton John becomes a dad to baby boy born on Christmas Day (
Daily Mirror);
Sir Elton & Furnish welcome baby boy (
Daily Express);
Elton John has baby (
Daily Star).
The Sun asked
Who's the daddy? But it was not meant in a malicious way, and there was a wholly supportive sidebar by the paper's agony aunt,
Deidre Sanders.
The
Daily Mail was slightly more waspish in its approach,
Two fathers, two mothers - the unorthodox parentage of 63-year-old Elton John's baby is revealed. By Mail standards it was kind enough.
Bel Mooney, writing for the Mail, was certainly not pleased. In
Accessory children and the question: Who is my mummy? she argued that she had nothing against gay couples raising children, but objected to "the Âmodern phenomenon of babies as a celebrity accessory."
The Independent, which clearly feels its readers are as uninterested in celebrity royalty as they are the monarchical variety, gave it much less space than the others with
no more than a picture caption.
But it was the first comment under the Indy's online version that caught my eye and prompted me to study threads on the other papers' sites. It said:
"An abomination of nature. Totally, and overwhelmingly, disgusting. The descent into the abyss has now passed the tipping point" - Epiphron
There were, in fairness, some countervailing comments below it. So what about the Mail's online response? At the time of writing (12.15pm), there were 78 comments.
They began with references to "that poor baby" and claims that it was a "disgraceful" and "decadent" act by the singer and his partner. "Nice new toy, Elton", wrote
Steve, Kingsbury.
Amid some sympathetic comments ("just cos a guy is gay doesn't mean he can't feel paternal instincts... surely normality means consistent love, education and protection doesn't it?" -
Teena, South France) the majority were hostile.
"On all levels, what ever way you look at this, it's so so wrong" - Roy, Green and pleasant land... "This is PC gone totally mental" - Please have mercy... "Poor people buy animals as pets, the wealthy buy humans as pets" - King David, Georgia, USA.
Among The Sun's 130 commenters, there were many who were supportive of the couple, with several offering their congratulations. Some worried over John's age rather than his sexual proclivity.
But the majority, by a slim margin, were opposed to the move, such as
Kindu5: "whoever allowed this to happen should hang their head in shame!" Many agreed with him:
"I am sure that all right-minded readers will be as appalled at this news as I am myself! It is madness - sheer madness - to allow this 'odd' couple to be given custody of a child" - Calhoon
"I shudder at the idea of two old men raising a baby" - 2010Catweasel
"SOOOOOO WRONG" - PayMeAtHalftime
"Absolutely disgusting - there should be a law against anybody over 45 having a new born" - herreu
Express readers' were predictably hostile, but only nine of them bothered to comment. These are typical examples:
"And we are all supposed to celebrate this?" - freemycatfish... "It is totally sickening that these acts are lawful" - AlexanderDover... "THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG!" - mikegrunt4
Of The Times's 27 commenters, most were worried about Elton's age and the impact of his wealth rather than his gayness. But
Hopey wrote: "This adoption makes me proud to be a bigot."
And
John Buckeridge argued: "It is cringemaking for the Times to refer to Elton John's husband. Is this the wording of the press release? Is this how they wish to be known? Other than that good luck to them."
The Mirror encouraged debate with a piece headlined
Is Sir Elton John too old to be a good parent at 63? But its website is so unpopular it rarely attracts commenters.
Of the two people who did respond, one,
Calhoon, repeated his Sun message (see above), and the other,
JamesdelaMare wrote: "This is really more like adoption than proper parenting. These two can't be proper parents. It's a mess and the newspapers shouldn't pretend otherwise."
Newspapers shouldn't pretend otherwise, eh? Well, I think they should. Though popular papers tend to avoid confronting their readers with an agenda that does not accord with the majority viewpoint, it is always heartening when it happens.
For example, though the majority of the population would almost certainly vote for capital punishment, no national newspaper has dared to advocate it (even though some editors and many journalists may well wish for the return of hanging).
Similarly, even though some editors and many journalists are anything but happy about gay rights, no paper would wish to be seen as openly homophobic.
Of course, this may well be viewed as a triumph for political correctness. And it probably is. So how about them onions?
Reprodução/Daily Mail
Copyright © 2010 ITN
Elton John adota menino nascido no Natal junto com o diretor canadense David Furnish 
