Churnalism, terrorism and alcoholism

Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column on Rentokil is excellent. He shows how the Telegraph, Evening Standard and the Mail all mindlessly repeated some bogus claims made by Rentokil in a classic bit of churnalism.

Yes, Mr Dacre. Churnalism. In the Mail.

The journalists did nothing to investigate or verify the story, or even consider that Renotkil's claims that 2,000 bugs are in every train compartment might not be totally believable.

After a week and a half of obfuscation, Rentokil eventually issued a 'clarification and apology' because, they said:

it might be helpful to explain how we arrived at the numbers and where things went so wrong.

Quite. They added:

We’re really sorry that the numbers that appeared in the media were wrong and misleading and we’ve put in place a number of measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

So the numbers have been exposed by the Guardian and retracted by the company behind them. Yet the Mail, Telegraph and Standard articles are still live. Why?

This is a clear example of where the PCC should be pro-active in ensuring the articles are removed and clarifications posted.

By contrast, the PCC would be hard pushed to act on articles about Ian Davison, however, because there aren't any.

Davison had produced ricin and possessed 'documents which detailed how to make explosives and could by used in acts of terrorism'.

When he was arrested last June, the Mail called him a 'white supremacist' who wanted to 'poison ethnic minorities'.

Davison admitted the charges in court last week - yet the tabloid press has been absolutely silent since then.

It's a quite astonishing silence, which shows the stark contrast between how terrorists and terror suspects are treated by the press based on the colour of their skin and religion.

Indeed, the Mail spent more time covering the case of Cossor Ali, who was cleared of 'failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism'.

But according to the Mail, an innocent Muslim woman is more newsworthy than a white man who admits to producing ricin.

There's more on Davison and media coverage of ricin plots at Septicisle.

One more recommended read: over at the Beer Blog, Pete Brown has exposed the Mail's latest attempt to scare people about drink.

How newspapers influence their readers

Over at Angry Mob, Uponnothing has written about the brainless comments left on the Mail website about the treatment of Gurkhas and immigrants.

The gulf between what Mail readers (and indeed, Mail columnists) think immigrants, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers each get when they come to Britain, and what they actually get (or more likely, don't get), is immense.

And another comment on another story on the Mail website today showed the same thing:


So Steve believes illegal immigrants register to vote and he pays taxes just so they can claim benefits and housing for a 'lifetime'. You might think that would be hard to do while remaining 'illegal'.

Yet the Mail moderators think this nonsense is a legitimate comment to be posted.

And, sigh, at least 721 Mail readers agree with them.

Littlejohn makes it up, even when claiming he doesn't

Yesterday, Richard Littlejohn was talking about health and safety. Again. But he was on the defensive this time.

Rob Strange, Chief Executive of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, had written in the Independent about the nonsense the media wrongly attributes to 'health and safety'. As an example, he highlighted a Littlejohn column that:

...rolled its eyes at the news that a coastal footpath had “fallen foul of elf ‘n’ safety”, amid concerns that someone might fall in a loch and drown. Apparently, a lifeguard would need to be present at all times.

A quick phone call to the local authority revealed that the walk, considered unsuitable for toddlers, had simply been left out of a local guide to family walks. The lifeguard was pure fiction.

Littlejohn huffed back:

The chief executive of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has accused me of making up stories about elf'n'safety.

Never mind that he can point to only one example

Yes, that's because he only had a few hundreds words. He goes on:

Never mind that he can point to only one example, a story which came not from my imagination, but from the Rotary Club of Stranraer, which was told that it would have to employ a lifeguard and a 'trained outdoor specialist' if it intended to use a footpath alongside Loch Ryan.

Hmm. So Littlejohn's Chinese whispers or the word of the local authority?

But the overpaid buffoon couldn't stop there and had to stick his foot in it again:

He also, rather unfortunately, chose the day on which we learned that the traditional cheese-rolling contest in Gloucestershire had been cancelled this year on grounds of elf'n'safety.

Sometimes, even I can't make it up.

Except, you won't be surprised to learn, he can. For two reasons.

One is that the cheese-rolling cancellation was announced on Thursday 11 March (the Mail reported it on the Friday), whereas Smith's article was in the Independent on Monday 15 March.

That's what Littlejohn thinks is the same day.

Moreover, as this blog pointed out on Friday, the cheese-rolling was not cancelled for health and safety reasons.

(More over at Angry Mob)

A quick mention of last Friday's Littlejohn columns where he once again wheeled out two of his most over-used ideas: ripping off old TV programs, and 'hilarious' imaginary conversations.

Later, he accused the media of being a:

rolling party political broadcast

for the government. He blamed political reporters for 'taking dictation' from Lord Mandelson and suggested that any critical reporting of David Cameron was somehow unfair and unjustified.

But he ended this little segment with this gem:

This isn't journalism

That's right. Littlejohn lecturing other people about what 'journalism' is.

You couldn't...oh, you know the rest.

But his most obnoxious comment came in a short piece about the arrest of Colleen LaRose (who has been dubbed by 'Jihad Jane'), which, as 5CC points out, saw Littlejohn recommend racial profiling.

Oh no, Littlejohn whined, now white people will have to be stopped and searched at airports because there has never been a white terrorist before:

Millions of innocent women will now have to suffer the indignity of electronic stripsearching before they board a plane, on the off-chance they might turn out to be 'Jihad Judy' or 'Jihad Jill'.

Presumably, Littlejohn also fears for the suffering of millions of innocent Muslims who have to do the same.

No, thought not.

As if that wasn't cretinous enough, he added:

'Jihad Jane' is the one they've all been praying for, just as the first Western heterosexual woman with HIV was a godsend to the Aids industry.

What?

So apparently, not only is there an 'AIDS industry' but this industry thinks it's a 'godsend' when someone becomes infected with HIV.

Sorry for saying you gatecrashed your father's wake

The Sun and the Evening Standard have both apologised to Nancy Jones after they claimed she had 'gatecrashed' Keith Floyd's wake and announced she was his 'lovechild':


But:

An article on 6 October last year about Keith Floyd's funeral wrongly stated that Nancy Jones had gatecrashed the wake, had acted in an insensitive way and that she was ushered out. We now accept that our information was incorrect.

Nancy Jones, Keith Floyd's eldest daughter, was expected and welcomed at the event and was not ushered out because of her behaviour or otherwise.

We apologise to her for any embarrassment caused.

And from the Standard:

On 6 October 2009, our article suggested that Nancy Jones gate crashed Keith Floyd's wake and announced that she was his secret love child.

We accept that Ms Jones, Mr Floyd's eldest daughter, was well known to the family, that she was invited to the event, and that she did not behave in an insensitive manner to any of the guests.

We apologise for the distress caused to her at a difficult time.

(Hat-tip Regret the Error)

Scaremongering about immigrants and the NHS

On Saturday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in schools:

On Sunday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in the job market:


On Monday, immigrants were (again) being blamed for problems in the job market:


And on Tuesday, immigrants were being blamed for problems in the NHS:


Predictably, the BNP wasted no time in regurgitating each story for their own website.

The racist party's article on the Mail's school story was followed by this ugly comment:


How proud the Mail must be to help foster such hatred.

But back to the Express' front page about Poles getting abortions on the NHS. This story was actually in Monday's Sun, so it's no surprise to see it appear in the Express the following day.

The Sun said:

Ten thousand Polish women came to Britain for NHS abortions last year.

The phrasing is deliberate. 'Came' to Britain for an abortion. As if that was the sole purpose of their visit. And there's little evidence to suggest that is true.

Nonetheless, the Express suggested the same:

A Polish source said yesterday that thousands of Polish women already flee the strict Roman Catholic country’s anti-abortion laws every year to undergo the procedure on the NHS.

There's not a hint of any sympathy in any of this coverage for Polish women based on the fact that:

Poland practises one of the most restrictive abortion regimes in Europe, banning and criminalising it except on medical grounds, risk to life, and where pregnancy results from sexual violence.

The Department of Health said in a statement:

The NHS is provided primarily for the benefit of people lawfully resident in the UK.

There is no provision in the UK Immigration Rules for people to come to this country for the purpose of obtaining NHS treatment and with certain exceptions non-residents are expected to pay for any medical treatment they receive while they are here.

We do, however, choose to exempt from charge the residents of some countries for some treatment needs when they visit the UK, under reciprocal healthcare agreements, meaning that UK citizens receive similar benefits when they visit those countries.

But in any case, are 'thousands' of Polish women coming to the UK to have abortions?

Well, no.

The latest Department of Health figures for abortions carried out in England and Wales cover 2008.

They show that the number of women who are residents of Poland and who had an abortion in England and Wales was just 30.

Compare that with the 4,600 women from Ireland.

And yet, would the Express put 'Now Irish get free abortions on NHS' on it's front page?

Indeed, of all the abortions for women classifed as non-resident in England and Wales, 90.6% came from Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

The 30 Poles equate to 0.4%. There are more from Italy (150) and France (60), while Spain accounted for 29.

So why pick on the Poles?

Clearly given the increase in the Polish population of Britain since EU enlargement there are likely to be more Polish women who are living and working here but they are as entitled to NHS treatment as anyone else.

But the tabloids are not framing the story in that way - it's all about scaremongering about health tourism and immigrants getting things the papers think they shouldn't.

(More by Unity at Liberal Conspiracy)

A front page apology

This blog doesn't usually report on what is published in the Star Press newspaper from Muncie, Indiana, but today will be an exception.

Why?

Because the paper has put a fairly comprehensive apology on its front page, complete with explanation as to how the original error appeared.

And as much as they need criticising for the mistake, they need praising for being upfront and honest in admitting that mistake.

The paper explained:

[Tom] Collins, athletic director at Ball State, did not apply for the AD's job at Dixie State College. A Tom Collins did apply for that job, but it was a different Tom Collins, not Tom Collins of BSU.

But how's this for the start to their apology:

We screwed up. And to Tom Collins, we're sorry.

How often do you hear that from a British newspaper. The paper's sports editor, Greg Fallon, goes on to write:

We were all wrong.

And because we were, we brought potential harm to Tom Collins.

The bottom line: We should have called Collins when we first heard the rumors. We should have taken more care with our reporting. We should not have allowed a lack of decision time to rush our decision.

Sure, in a world that has come to expect stories quicker than instantly, news is perishable, but that's no excuse.

Please understand, the words we publish day in and day out, from top to bottom of this newspaper, are not written lightly. And Wednesday's story was no different.

Neither is this apology to Tom Collins, nor this explanation to you.

It's almost impossible to imagine a British newspaper - particularly a national - writing something such as this on their front page?

And yet, why shouldn't they?

Anatomy of a newspaper

The front of today's Express was notable for two reasons:


One was the return of Diana.

The other was a headline about British workers being told: 'no jobs unless you are Polish'.

Much the same headline, in fact, that appeared on the front page of yesterday's Mail on Sunday:


Notice how the Express puts the Mail on Sunday's headline in quote marks.

And it's not just the headline the Express have, err, borrowed. Natalie Fahy's article is much the same as well.

It comes complete with the obligatory Express phone poll. Today, it asks 'Should British jobs go to British workers?'

The result will almost certainly be around 98% saying yes. But assuming a British job is a job in Britain, that would mean Express readers don't want anyone who is not British working in this country.

They're an enlightened bunch.

Half the letters in today's paper are about Muslims or immigration. In a note from Barry Clay, Norwich, he complains about a Conservative MP comparing burkhas to motorcycle helmets because, he says:

bike fans do a lot for various charities and are mostly decent members of the community.

And Muslims don't and aren't?

Back to the Express' front page and that Diana story is essentially another airing for claims the blood samples proving Henri Paul was drunk weren't actually taken from his body. It's not quite clear why this old nonsense is worth the front page as the paper has done this story once or twice before. Well, dozens of times.

On page 2, the Express gives results of two previous polls. 97% think Britain has been betrayed over the Falklands, while 98% think burkhas should be banned in public.

This is on page three:


This story was posted on the Mail's website on Saturday night and was prominent in their Femail section for much of yesterday:


Also on the Express' page 3, some gossip about Tiger Woods:


This wasn't in the Mail, but does seem to have been 'borrowed' from TMZ, where it was posted on Saturday:


On page 4, news of Labour plans for the House of Lords:


Which may have sounded familiar to anyone who saw yesterday's Sunday Telegraph:


Page 5 has the continuation of the front page 'Polish workers' story, plus another article about failed asylum seekers. And this:

And on page 17 this:


Guess what? Both the drink driving and raffled egg stories may have sounded, ahem, familiar to anyone who saw yesterday's Sunday Times:


On page 6, the strike at BA:

Which was framed in much the same way as Sunday's News of the World version:


Page ten turns to politics, including how former GMTV political editor Gloria De Piero is standing for Labour at the election:


This obviously had nothing to do with a page seven spread in yesterday's Mail on Sunday on the same topic:


The next page of the Express has the tale of two Brits who kissed in Dubai:


Which was on page 42 on yesterday's Mail on Sunday:


On page 17, the inevitable Cheryl Cole story:


Ashley Cole thrown out within 20 minutes? You don't say:



Two pages later, the inevitable Jon Venables article:


Which started life on the front of yesterday's News of the World:


In fact, one of the only Sunday front page stories the Express haven't used today is this one:


It's not hard to work out why.

There are other stories the Express have included which they have also borrowed from other newspapers too. Such as:

• The death of Liam Nelson, which appeared on the Mail website on Saturday.
• A woman complaining about her bins, which was in The People.
• Drew Barrymore's views on botox, which appeared in an interview in yesterday's Mail on Sunday.
• Duncan Bannatyne talking about suicide on Desert Island Discs.
• A climate change controversy which was posted on the Telegraph's website on Saturday.
• An Audit Commission report on council chiefs which was also posted on the Telegraph's website on Saturday.

Essentially, almost every 'news' story in today's Express has appeared in other media outlets, mainly other British newspapers, at some point over the last few days.

Where's the journalism?

The latest ABCs show another fall in the Express' circulation - down 1,689 since January to 672,951 copies sold per day.

Is it any wonder? Leading with decade old claims about Diana, and then filling the bits between the many, many adverts with stories that have appeared in other newspapers.

We know the Express is starved of resources, but this is a dismal state of affairs - especially for something that laughably calls itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper'.

Raising false hopes with cancer coverage

After recent front page headlines about toxic juice and dodgy slimming pills, the Express newspapers reverted to a 'miracle cure' for cancer on Sunday 7 March.

Cancer 'code' is cracked, it said. The 'greatest discovery since chemotherapy' it suggested.

If it was, you might have expected it to be on the front of others newspapers.

But a clue is in the sub-head:

New theory could be 'greatest discovery since chemotherapy'.

'Theory'? 'Could'? Not quite so convincing, is it?

Lucy Johnston's article continues:

researchers believe they have, against the odds, succeeded in halting the spread of advanced cancer.

And the researchers focused on ovarian cancer.

Of course, any research that may help the fight against cancer is a good thing. But in reality, this is preliminary data about stopping the growth of ovarian cancer.

Indeed, in a Sydney Morning Herald article a couple of weeks before (yes, the Express is on the ball, as ever) research team leader Prof Michael Quinn was quoted saying:

'The tumours have stopped growing - that's all we had hoped for. I don't think this is the magic bullet yet but it's certainly enough for us to continue our work.'

Which isn't exactly evidence of the cancer code being 'cracked'.

Cancer Research UK, in their blogpost 'Cancer code cracked'? Not just yet, have pointed out some factual inaccuracies in the Sunday Express' article and dismissed their presentation of the research:

Sadly the story is actually only based on an idea rather than on concrete scientific evidence.

And:

It will be interesting to see the detailed, published results of the trial once it is completed.

But until then, it’s impossible to say whether this is a significant advance in treatment for the disease.

And:

Unfortunately this story doesn’t present any hard data, and it is too early to say whether the researchers’ theory will hold up in more detailed tests with a larger sample of patients.

'Breakthrough' is simply too strong to describe this work and it’s certainly not 'the most exciting development since the introduction of chemotherapy in the Fifties'.

The only real development here is the raising of false hopes for people with cancer and their families.

That last point is the most important. Bad reporting is a given at the Express newspapers.

But it is irresponsible for them (and other tabloids) to continue to run these misleading 'miracle cure' stories, which raise 'false hopes' for the sake of an eye-catching headline.

Mail blames immigrants for school overcrowding

Here's a not-in-the-least-bit-biased headline from the Mail website:


Schools 'overflowing' because of immigrant babies? The headline says so. So it must be true. There's obviously no other reason for what it says are 'overcrowded classrooms'.

Except...if you read into the article, there are other reasons. Such as a:

recession-fuelled exodus from private schools.

And:

increasing fertility rates, possibly linked to maternity leave and tax credit policies.

Oh, and:

A sluggish housing market has compounded the crisis because parents are effectively trapped in areas with school place shortages.

Not to mention:

more than 1,000 primary schools have closed since 1999

The article doesn't actually give any statistical evidence to say how each of these factors has influenced primary school admissions.

Why bother, when you can just lazily blame it all on the immigrants?

It does say:

Applications for primary schools places have soared 23 per cent since 2008 in some areas

Yet the little table they produce shows only one area with a 22.8% increase since 2008 and all other areas significantly less (including one 7.8% decrease):


Indeed, the article states:

Our survey of local authorities suggests that more than half are seeing a rise in the number of applicants for primary schools this year.

It doesn't say how many 'more than half' it is - which suggests it may not be that many more. And that implies there are significant regional variations.

But why focus on those variations, or schools that have shut, or fewer children going private, or a sluggish housing market or increased fertility rates in the whole population, when you can just point an accusing finger at immigrants instead?

Star retracts 'wolf-whistling ban' story

Last Tuesday, the Daily Star wasn't content to run false stories on the front page - they were doing it inside as well.

They published this story:


And two days later:

Our March 9 article stated that Equalities Minister Harriet Harman was planning tough new site rules for the construction industry under her Dignity at Work Agreement.

We wish to make clear that our article was incorrect and that Harriet Harman is not proposing any rules for the construction industry.

The Dignity at Work document is for internal use only by the Government Equalities Office and was prepared by its human resources department and not the Minister.

Overpaid MP repeats the 'dog ate earring' story

The Mail on Sunday's false story about Kate Middleton's dog eating some earrings given to her by Prince William has been exposed by the fact Middleton doesn't have a dog.

This is known to the Express' Royal Reporter Richard Palmer, who tweeted it about it on Monday.

But on Tuesday, Express columnist and Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe repeated the story:

“The dog ate my income tax form” or “the dog ate my homework” are proverbial excuses but “the dog ate my pearl earrings” is certainly an original plea. Poor Kate Middleton, whose birthday gift from Prince William was swallowed up by her curious cocker spaniel!

Except they weren't, because she doesn't have a spaniel.

The Prince is reported to have found the whole episode hilarious

Except, he didn't, because there was no 'episode'.

Widdecombe is paid up to £5,000 by the Express for every article she writes.

As Richard Littlejohn shows twice a week, there's lots of money to be made out of re-heating stories without doing any research to see if they're accurate.

Independent apologises for 'hooker' headline

The Independent has finally apologised for a disgraceful slur against writer Zoe Margolis:

On 7 March 2010, we published an article by Zoe Margolis. In part of the first edition of the newspaper and online, this article carried the headline, “I was a hooker who became an agony aunt”.

This was written by the newspaper not Ms Margolis. We accept that Ms Margolis is not and never has been “a hooker” or otherwise involved in the sex industry.

The wording of the headline was a mistake and seriously defamatory of Ms Margolis. We offer our sincere apologies to Ms Margolis for the damage to her reputation and the distress and embarrassment which she has suffered.

Given that they hurriedly changed the headline online and in later editions of the print edition, it seems odd that they've waited five days to publish the above.

Moreover, have they released it on a Friday afternoon because that's a good time to bury bad news?

This is the second clarification this week (see also Mail and Facebook) to appear quickly after the original article appeared. In both cases, the complainants went through lawyers, not the PCC.

That's not a coincidence.

Mail creates a new health and safety myth

Here's a classic Mail headline:


A two-hundred-year-old British tradition ruined by 'health and safety killjoys'? It's a Mail wet dream:

One of the UK's oldest traditional events has been killed off this year after falling victim to health and safety concerns.

But, as usual with such stories, it's not entirely accurate.

Yes, this year's race at Cooper's Hill in Gloucester has been cancelled. But:

The organisers of the Cooper's Hill Cheese Rolling and Wake regret to announce that the 2010 event has been cancelled.

The attendance at the event has far outgrown the location where it has traditionally been held for several hundred years: last year more than 15,000 people tried to attend (according to official estimates) which is more than three times the capacity of the site.

So the organisers cancelled it. Not 'health and safety killjoys' then?

And it's nothing to do with the actual cheese-roll race itself, which the Mail seems to imply.

While quoting some of the comments left on the Committee's blog, they ignore some of the others. Such as:

Being another committee bloke can we just make it clear here that the police, council or hse do not organise the cheese roll, nor have they stopped it. We the committee organise the event and now that we have the support and help of the council and police, we WILL continue to do so.

Not 'health and safety killjoys' then?

Another committee member says:

Last year the roads around the site were blocked for miles, visitors' cars were abandoned everywhere when traffic stopped flowing and many were then vandalised.

Not 'health and safety killjoys' then?

In their official statement, they say:

The organisers are working with the local Authorities and Police to control numbers which will enhance:

- crowd safety

- respect for the local community

- emergency vehicle access

- traffic flow on local and trunk roads

Unlike many of the commentators on the Mail website, I have been to Cooper's Hill and it's a very awkward place to get to, along some very narrow roads. Given that accidents and injuries do happen, access is important.

And how many Mail readers would appreciate roads around where they live being 'blocked for miles' by outsiders?

Although the Mail moderators have let through quite a few comments which point out the headline and article are wrong, there are still plenty of mindless, frothing, ignorant outbursts.

'Best' of the lot? This cracker:

Mail's latest attack on Facebook backfires

Much has already been written about the Mail's face-off with Facebook.

David Steven has been on the case and his frequently updated post is well worth reading.

Other articles are available at the BBC from Rory Cellan-Jones, the Guardian and at 5CC who puts the story in a wider context.

In short, the Mail ran this story prominently on its website and in a two-page spread in the print edition:


It was based on some online research by former cop Mark Williams-Thomas.

But he didn't do that research on Facebook, as the Mail's headline claimed.

The description of having people trying to chat with him within 90 seconds didn't even sound like the way Facebook works.

According to Williams-Thomas, he was sent a draft of the article by the Mail but they ignored his requests for the inaccurate references to Facebook to be removed.

Mail Assistant Editor Charles Garside blamed it on 'miscommunication'.

Given that in the past the Mail has accused Facebook of giving you cancer, destroying your marriage, raising your insurance premiums, rotting your children's brains, making you fail exams, putting you in a coma, causing riots, making you commit suicide, promoting gangster culture and causing you to be stabbed and strangled that seems unlikely.

Look at the front pages from Tuesday and Wednesday:














The Mail has a bizarre, obsessive hatred for Facebook and will try and blame it for whatever it can, and in the wake of the Ashleigh Hall case, stories about teen girls 'meeting' pervy men online were the order of the day.

The website headline was soon changed, and all references to the site removed from the text. But the Mail couldn't work out how to change the URL for some time, and so the slur remained.

And, apparently, all attempts by Facebook to post correcting comments were rejected by the Mail's moderators.

With Facebook threatening to sue, the Mail added this 'clarification' to the article:

In an earlier version of this article, we wrongly stated that the criminologist had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.

And another clarification (not apology) was published on page four of today's newspaper:

In an article by a criminologist yesterday, we wrongly stated that he had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages.

In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.

Three things stand out. Firstly, note how the printed clarification blames 'an article by a criminologist' rather than an article by the Mail's Laura Topham. This feeble blame-shifting is all too common in clarifications and apologies. Why can't the Mail just admit they got it badly wrong? And why can't they just say sorry?

Secondly, although the original story was prominent on the Mail's homepage yesterday, the printed clarification can only be found by searching for 'facebook'. 'Due prominence', as the Editor's Code says, should mean it was mentioned from the homepage like the original.

Thirdly, when faced with the threat of court action by a huge worldwide company such as Facebook, isn't the Mail's back-peddling notably quick to appear.

Compare that with the member of the public who complained about Richard Littlejohn blaming Eastern Europeans for 'most' robberies in Britain, where the Mail took six weeks to reply to the PCC over the issue.

According to Channel 4 News' Ben Cohen, Facebook have rejected the Mail's apology (which it wasn't, anyway) and plan to go ahead with their legal action because of the damage to their name caused by the Mail article.

Let's hope they do, so the Mail can be properly held to account.

For once.

Is the Mail now plagiarising user comments from IMDB?

Remember Mail Online hack Chris Johnson, who wrote an article about Dick Van Dyke's appearance at an LA stage production of Mary Poppins, which had suspicious similarities to an article from an American website?

Today, he's been given the task of writing an article about Alice Eve, who appeared at the premiere of her new film She's Out of My League in a:

low-cut pink dress to show off the figure that wins her so many admirers in the movie

The headline refers to her:

her leading lady attributes.

Yes, really.

But then there's Johnson's synopsis of the film's plot:

In the film Alice plays Molly, a beautiful events planner who has a chance encounter with geeky airport security guard Kirk (Baruchel).

Kirk is smitten by Molly, but his friends point out to him that he doesn't have a chance, because he is only rated as a '5' and Molly is definitely a '10'.

However, Molly has something else in mind, because she has found that Kirk is sweet, amusing, honest, and different from the men she has been dating.

Googling the second of those sentences and the very same words pop up somewhere else - in a review on IMDB by the-movie-guy:

Molly (Alice Eve) is a sexy event planner who is delayed by a sleazy airport security guard. Another security guard, Kirk (Jay Baruchel) comes to her rescue, and passes her through to catch her plane...

Kirk is smitten by Molly, but his friends point out to him that he doesn't have a chance, because he is only rated as a "5" and Molly is definitely a "10"...

However, Molly has something else in mind, because she has found that Kirk is sweet, amusing, honest, and different from the men she has been dating.

That means there are now four Mail articles which appear to have more than a hint of plagiarism about them.

When will anyone bring them to account?