The Sun's website homepage currently has three Jordan stories at the top. The Mail's main picture story at time of writing is about Jordan in a bikini (shock!) and other IAC articles are also listed in their Femail section.
And this is just the start. There is going to be lots of pisspoor coverage of this pisspoor programme for several weeks to come.
One person you won't find in the jungle, however, is Britain's Got Talent warbler Susan Boyle. Back in May, the Daily Star confidently put it on their front page that Boyle was 'to star in I'm a Celebrity'. This blog equally confidently predicted it wouldn't happen. And it hasn't.
Of course, revealing that the Star has front page stories which are full of lies and misleading headlines isn't really revealing at all. The 'Jade back in BB' front page - published after St Jade had died - was a prime example, but they are many, many others.
But for this series of I'm A Celebrity, they're repeating fictional stories they invented for the last series.
Here's the Star from yesterday:
As you might have guessed, the story reveals she said no such thing. In fact, after claiming in the first sentence of the article that:
Jordan has set her sights on Sam Fox for a steamy jungle clinch
there are no quotes from Jordan or anyone else to back up that claim. So: it's a lie. And it's a lie they used last year when they claimed two female contestants were involved in a 'sexsation':
And that didn't happen either. This is meant to be a newspaper. We know it isn't. But it is meant to be. Yet selling itself on the basis of some 'girl-on-girl lust' is something that Nuts - or a men's magazine even higher on the shelf - might do. Star owner Richard Desmond still owns porn channels and used to own such delightful magazines as Asian Babes and Horny Housewives. Clearly old habits die hard.
There may well be some lust between two people of the same sex on IAC - after all, contestants Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan are in a civil partnership. But the homophobic Star would never dream of selling an edition with same-sex male 'lust' on the cover.
The Star does, however, like heterosexual 'lust' on the cover. Or should that be, 'imagined heterosexual lust'? Here's today's front page:
'Fumble in the Jungle'. 'Topless romp'. 'Scenes too hot for TV'. Surely this must be true?
Errr, no. Once again the actual story doesn't even pretend any such thing has happened. What the poor, sheltered Star believes is a 'fumble' and a 'topless romp' is what most people refer to as 'washing':
Kate Price flashed her boobs twice within in 60 minutes of landing in the jungle. First she stripped down to her undies in a Celeb challenge, then she went for a shower. But Kate, aka Jordan, soon found that she had some topless rivals. Busty Kim Woodburn, 67, showed off her whoppers as she took a bath. Sam Fox also plunged into the pool.
Wow. And if all that is - ahem - 'too hot for TV' how come both the Star and the Mail have lots of screenshots taken from a TV?
It even adds a totally made-up quote from a conveniently anonymous source who 'says':
“If they’re showing that much flesh in the first 24 hours, what on Earth is going to happen in the days to come?”
Errr, nothing? It's dismal stuff and even less titillating than a below-par Robin Askwith film.
And it's not the first time they have decided people having a shower is a 'romp' either. From last year:
Note the use of the 'too steamy for TV' idea, as the Star clearly thinks its readers are stupid enough to believe a ratings hungry TV producer wouldn't put sleb romps on screen if they happened. Which they haven't. Again.
The Star is Richard Desmond's other worthless rag. The Express thinks it's a serious newspaper. The Star knows it's all about tits and bums and reality TV, with the occasional recruitment drive for the far-right thrown in for good measure.
Often it seems the Star's sole, pitiful ambition is to be a running commentary on Jordan's life - the real life and the one it invents. It has put her on the front page for six out of the last eight days, which suggests it shouldn't even be called a newspaper any more.
But the lack of truth in even these utterly trivial stories is staggering. Granted, it's preferable to lying about more important issues, but is it too much to ask that the Star put out something vaguely resembling the truth? At some point. About anything.