'May have given the impression he's a cocaine user'

A correction in today's Mail says:

An article published on 22 October 2012 about world-renowned heart surgeon Dr Jeffrey Moses which first appeared in the New York Post may have given the false impression that he is currently a cocaine user who is, and was for years, allowed by his hospital to operate on patients while under the influence of the drug.

The article reported allegations of cocaine use made by Dr Moses’s ex-wife in their 2005 divorce case which were proven to be conclusively false by two identical tests which were negative. The decision by the New York Presbyterian Hospital not to discipline Dr Moses was based on these tests and a court-ordered examination by a psychiatrist which concluded he had no cocaine addiction problems.

The New York Post has accepted that it did not intend its article to give the impression that Dr Moses performed heart surgery under the influence of cocaine. We are also happy to make clear that the New York Post has said it regretted any misunderstanding caused by its article and any harm it caused Dr Moses personally or professionally.

Notice the Mail doesn't make any statement of regret or apology of its own.

'No truth whatsoever'

Five days ago, the Mirror reported that Tour de France winner Bradley Wiggins was:

teaming with Paul Weller and Bruce Foxton on new single.

The article didn't have any confirmation from Wiggins, Weller, Foxton, any of the others said to be involved, or their spokespeople. Just one anonymous source:

A source said: “It’s all incredibly exciting and has been in the pipeline for some time.

“Everything has finally been signed off though, and a date set for mid-February.”

The Mirror's article has now vanished from its website - very possibly as a result of this post on Weller's Official Facebook page:

'No truth whatsoever'.

Mike Dawes at MailOnline, the Huffington Post and the Express all repeated the story based solely, it seems, on the Mirror's anonymous source. There doesn't appear to be have been any fact-checking by any of them - just some copy-and-pasting. The Express article was published after the Weller denial.

Five days on, all three articles remain live and uncorrected.

(Hat-tip to oboogie at MailWatch Forum)

MailOnline Showbiz Awards deserve award for hypocrisy

Ladies and gentlemen, it's the awards you have been waiting for. No, not the Baftas or the Oscars, but the inaugural MailOnline Showbiz Awards 2012.

The idea is explained perfectly in the intro:

Just like you the readers, the activities of particular celebrities deserving of praise, and those not so deserving have been named in our own non-exhaustive list of recipients for the inaugural Mail Online Showbiz Awards.

We're then given the details. First: best bikini body. Cynics might suggest this is just an excuse to publish ten photos of scantily-clad female celebs - and they'd be right. There's also a 'rear of the year' award, illustrated by ten celeb arses.

To try and demonstrate that the MailOnline Showbiz Team are not totally in thrall to celebs, there's also a 'Put it away, love' category.

Curiously, Rihanna comes second in that category, depsite being 'awarded' 5th best bikini body and 4th best rear. Helen Flanagan also appears in the 'Best bikini body' and 'Put it away, love' categories.

The winner of the 'Put it away, love' category is Courtney Stodden. MailOnline has written 95 articles about Stodden in the last 18 months. Many of these are about her not wearing much: showing off acres of flesh in skimpy Halloween costumes; wearing a lacy crop-top and barely-there skirt; wearing towering see-through heels and a short red dress; wearing bikinis and stripper heels and so on and on and on. They even used the phrase 'All grown up at last!' when she turned 18.

The suggestion that they actually want her, or any of the other women they named, to cover up is utterly hollow, given the relish with which they have published photos of them all wearing so little.

Indeed, one week after suggesting Flanagan should 'put it away, love', MailOnline published five photos from a photo shoot it described like this:

In the 'Flab to Fab' category - and make of that name what you will - the top ten is missing a 5th, 6th and 8th placed person, which does nothing to dispel the idea this was a rush job.

Two other categories are worthy of note: Pointless Celebrity Tweeter and Vainest Celebrity Tweeter. The MailOnline Showbiz Team named Maria Fowler - who appeared in The Only Way Is Essex - as 'winner' of the former category.

If you search MailOnline for 'Maria Fowler Twitter' you get 138 results.

In this article, her tweets were so 'pointless' that members of the MailOnline team transcribed seven of them and took screenshots of six.

In this article, they included three more of her tweets and there were four more in this one, which also included three photos she had posted on Twitter.

There were two more of her tweets, and three more of her Twitter pics, in this piece, one tweet here, one pic here, two pics here, one tweet here, two here, three here, four here, and two tweets and three tweeted pics included here.

And that's just going back to 20 August 2012. 

If the MailOnline's hacks believe Fowler's Twitter feed is so 'pointless', why are they so keen to repeat so much of what she posts on it?

The Mail v Big Fat Quiz of the Year

The Mail has been desperately trying to create 'Sachsgate II' over a few jokes broadcast - after the watershed - on The Big Fat Quiz of the Year:

Originally, Ofcom received only a handful of complaints by people who appeared to have actually watched the programme. After several days of campaigning by the Mail, that number reached 165. Not, exactly, the success they were clearly hoping for:

Ofcom had received five complaints by last night, but that number could quickly grow – in Sachsgate, an initial two complaints rose to nearly 45,000.

The Mail said it made:

no apology for voicing concerns shared by an overwhelming but seldom-heard majority.

So seldom-heard, indeed, that even after days of trying to get a negative reaction, only a fraction of the people who saw the programme, or had read the jokes in the Mail, bothered to make themselves heard. 

The majority of comments on the online versions of the articles were critical of the Mail's stance. When the Mail needed some 'angry' comments to back its position, it chose the 'worst rated' ones from its own website.

Ofcom told the Independent that:

the vast majority [of complaints] were made in response to the negative media coverage.

Yet when defending Jan Moir over her nasty Stephen Gately article at the Leveson Inquiry, Mail editor Paul Dacre downplayed the 22,000 complaints sent to the PCC. He said:

You keep using the phrase "a lot of people" complained about this. You realise that these are all online complaints and this is an example of how tweetering can create a firestorm within hours...Most of those people conceded they hadn't read the piece.

But the Mail expresses no such concerns about the Big Fat Quiz complaints:

it was revealed that complaints to Ofcom and the broadcaster had now reached 165.

At least 80 viewers have complained to Ofcom about the show, which featured puerile sexual jokes and innuendo just minutes after the 9pm watershed. Some 85 have complained directly to Channel 4.

Some of the Mail's anger was specifically aimed at Jonathan Ross, who the paper has targeted since Sachsgate. Ross appeared on Big Fat Quiz and his production company made it. An editorial on 2 January said:

the Mail is quite happy to be accused of being reactionary when it wonders how many more of society’s broader problems are exacerbated by such creeps as Ross.

It also argued:

It cannot, surely, be fanciful to draw a connection between the explicit four-letter outbursts of such TV role models and the epidemic of vile, coarse ‘sexting’ in our schools.

But the paper provided no evidence for such a connection.

The Mail has repeated the (what it calls) 'vile' jokes again and again - including embedding video of 'one of the controversial jokes' on its online articles. It claimed that it had to publish all the jokes so people could make up their own mind about whether they were suitable for broadcast. It said the same when it repeatedly published dozens of images and videos of scantily-clad singers on The X Factor.

The Sun, however, was more coy. It said a joke about the Queen was:

too coarse to be repeated in a family newspaper.

Oddly, the Sun positioned this story and this claim on page 3, next to a topless female model. This is also the very same 'family newspaper' that on both the 28 October 2011 and 11 November 2011 ran full page ads for 'Triple-X DVD blockbusters'.

This morning, the lead story on MailOnline was this:

The headline was clear: Jack Whitehall could be dropped as a presenter at the National TV Awards. But deep in the story, there was this giveaway sentence:

A spokesman for the awards last night said the comedian had been booked and would be presenting an award as planned.

Despite that, MailOnline decided to run it as a major story implying the opposite.

The Independent revealed a few hours later:

Kim Turberville, creator and executive producer of the NTA, told The Independent: "Contrary to spurious reports earlier today, I would like to confirm that there has been no crisis summit over Jack Whitehall’s invitation to present an award at this year’s National Television Awards."

"We are very much looking forward to welcoming him on January 23 for our live show.”

The final word, for now, should go to the Mail, which said - apparently without irony - in its 2 January 2013 editorial:

Indeed, a New Year seems an appropriate time to take stock of what is deemed acceptable in popular culture – and ask what effects a constant diet of filth, misogyny and casual contempt for the vulnerable may have on impressionable young minds.

New year, same old churnalism

The Express and MailOnline have both published a story today - in their 'news' sections - claiming that 8:52pm tonight is the perfect time to find a partner through online dating.

And the entirely unbiased source of this extraordinary revelation?

Internet dating website match.com.

As Michael Marshall notes at the excellent Bad PR blog:

Sometimes, PR is so lacking in subtlety it can be astounding.

Littlejohn and 'callous indifference'

In March 2011, this blog noted:

You know that when Richard Littlejohn begins one of his columns sounding as if he's being sincere and caring, it won't last long.

In that case, he was writing about the Japanese tsunami. He started by saying that no one could fail to be moved by the scenes of destruction, before labelling the Japanese 'militantly racist' and recounting his dead grandfather's experiences during the Second World War.

On 27 December, Littlejohn decided to write about the death of three people - including two children - in an accident on the M6 on Christmas Day:

Saddest story of the week was the death of two young brothers, aged four and ten, in a crash on the northbound M6 in Staffordshire on Christmas morning. Their mother, who was driving the car, survived, but another woman passenger was also killed.

They were on their way to a family wedding when their Ford Focus came off the road and struck a tree.

Police immediately closed the motorway in both directions as rescuers and an air ambulance raced to the scene.

And when he begins sounding sincere, you know it won't last long...

We all appreciate that in the event of a fatal accident the emergency services must be given room to do their job. But patience begins to wear gossamer thin when the road remains closed for hours on end for no good reason...

There is no visible debris, so why couldn’t one or two lanes have been opened at the earliest opportunity?

Most of these people will have been on their way to spend Christmas Day with friends and family.

With no public transport available they had no choice but to take the car.

There can be no justification for forcing them to spend a moment longer than absolutely necessary stuck on the M6.

This, of course, fits into the Littlejohn narrative about over-the-top policing and 'health and safety Nazis'. But it's hard to imagine how this tragedy could lead someone into a rant about the inconvenience of road closures.

Littlejohn says:

There will probably be those who will accuse me of using these tragic deaths as a stick to beat the police. I can’t help that...

But ruining the Christmas Day of thousands of other people by forcing them to spend hours stranded in their cars unnecessarily was an act of callous indifference on the part of the police.

'Callous indifference' indeed.

Littlejohn appears not to have spoken to the police or the Highways Agency, nor does he seem to have been anywhere near the scene of the accident.

Photographer Michael Rawlins was there, and he has blogged about how many of Littlejohn's assumptions are as ill-informed as you might expect.

For example, Littlejohn says:

The accident on the M6 happened at 11.25am. Though the southbound carriage-way was reopened in the afternoon, the northbound carriageway stayed shut for several hours until early evening.

Rawlins points out that the soutbound carriage only re-opened around 2:30pm because:

the 3 bodies had only just been removed from the scene some 10 minutes earlier...It stands to reason that the southbound carriageway would also remain closed until this had happened, the last thing you need is an accident on the opposite carriageway because someone was rubbernecking.

Littlejohn also refers to a:

three-lane tailback of stationary cars and lorries stretching goodness knows how many miles into the distance.

A photo taken by Rawlins (at 2pm) one mile south of the accident shows:

vehicles are travelling south on the north bound carriageway... escorted by a Highways Agency vehicle not shown in this picture. If the blue sign is about a mile from the accident and other than the truck on the inside lane there is no stationary traffic then this debunks Littlejohn’s statement somewhat.

Rawlins adds:

I’m sure there were some tailbacks at Jct14 to the south but I drove from there up to the crash site along the diversion route and it wasn’t any busier than a normal weekday evening.

The real tragedy is that 3 people lost their lives on Christmas Day, families have lost 3 very loved people. The bigger tragedy is Littlejohn gets away with spouting this rubbish.

The anonymous police blogger Nathan Constable has also written about Littlejohn's article, labelling it 'horrible' and a 'poor-taste cheap shot'. He writes:

it’s not “just one vehicle involved” – the witnesses and other motorists have just watched this horror story unfold in front of their eyes and most will not have the desensitisation that the emergency service people have.

It is quite likely that the first few cars in the now huge queue will have witnesses on board. They will quite possibly be traumatised as well as having important information to share. You don’t just wave people on and hope they think to call in later.

He goes on:

So it’s not “just one vehicle involved” is it Mr Littlejohn? Emergency service personnel don’t just pack up and go home for tea and medals. In the incident I dealt with six months ago I went home and cried and I am about as cynical as they come.

And even if it was “just one vehicle involved” we still need to find out how and why this happened.

Was another driver driving dangerously?
Did they perform a manoeuvre so dangerous it was criminal?
Is someone else responsible?
Have the mechanics of the car been tampered with?
Is it murder?
Is it suicide?

You see – its not as simple as saying that “everything points to it being a tragic accident” within an hour of getting there. 

He adds:

The arrogance and ignorance it must take to write something like this simply staggers me.

MailOnline's 'photoshop fail'

Over the last twelve months or so, MailOnline has been quick to jump on 'photoshop fails' by others.

Despite that, they published this picture in an article yesterday:

(Hat-tip to Squeaker)

'Incredible footage'

The top story on the MailOnline homepage this morning:

The update, placed half-way down the MailOnline homepage tonight:

MailOnline calls Megan Fox a 'strumpet'

An article about a Jay Leno interview with actress Megan Fox appeared on MailOnline in the early hours of this morning.

Under the byline Monty Archibald, the article referred to Fox as a 'Christmas cracker' and then said this:

The chat show king certainly seemed to be enjoying himself as he had a chinwag with the Transformers star.

Perhaps he was just enjoying the hilarious tales of new motherhood from his irrepressible guest.

However the funnyman also surely enjoying the view after the canny strumpet twinned a Roland Mouret dress with Christian Louboutin shoes.

Making her figure all the more impressive is the fact she only gave birth two months ago.

The 26-year-old also revealed how much she is enjoying being a mother for the first time to her son Noel, whose father is her husband Brian Austin Green.

'Canny strumpet'.

Ben Fenton tweeted:

Does the author of this piece know that the word "strumpet" has only one meaning: prostitute?

This comes a couple of weeks after the Leveson report talked of the tendency of some sections of the tabloid press to 'sexualise and demean women'.

At 14:39, the article was edited. The byline was changed to 'Daily Mail Reporter' and Fox was now a:

canny actress

Despite the update, the Mail hasn't corrected the name of her son - it's Noah, not Noel.

'I didn’t find the card'

On 7 December, @Cheesyhel tweeted a photo of a birthday card for 13-year-old girls that she found in a local newsagents:

The card says:

If you had a rich boyfriend he'd give you diamonds and rubies. Well, maybe next year you will - when you've bigger boobies!

The Mail reported on the outrage that followed:

The article says:

American novelist Maureen Johnson was travelling though [sic] the UK when she came across the card. She took a picture and posted it to Twitter with the message: 'Dear @HallmarkPR, SERIOUSLY???? #letsmessgirlsupearlywithcards'.

The card sparked outrage across the social media service and by Saturday evening, her message had been re-tweeted more than 1,000 times.

It is not known which shop the author was in when she came across the card, but Hallmark UK claimed to be surprised that it was still on sale.

But this isn't true. American author Maureen Johnson had sent a tweet that included @Cheesyhel's pic - the latter's Twitter handle is revealed on opening the photo in Johnson's tweet.  

Today, Johnson tweeted what happened:

She then revealed the contact she'd had with Mail reporter Niamh O'Doherty:

On Saturday, December 8, 2012, Niamh O’Doherty wrote:

Hi Maureen,

My name is Niamh O’Doherty and I’m a reporter from The Daily Mail. We’re just writing a story about the Hallmark Card you found yesterday, and were wondering if you’d like to comment on it. Would you also be able to tell us in which shop you picked up the card?

Thanks so much,

Niamh

From: Maureen Johnson
Sent: 09 December 2012 04:26
To: Niamh O’Doherty
Subject: Re: Query from the Daily Mail

Niamh,
I didn’t find the card. It was found in the uk by someone else. I had surgery this week and was not traipsing about! I think HuffPo reported it that way, but I have no idea why.
Best,

mj

Niamh O’Doherty
Dec 9 (1 day ago)
to me
Thanks Maureen, appreciate it. Here’s to a speedy recovery!

Update: Given the Mail article was published online on 8 December, and Maureen's reply was not sent until the 9th, it seems the Mail ran the article without waiting for her reply, based on a misunderstanding of her original tweet. However, at time of writing, two days on from being told the truth by Maureen, the Mail has not corrected the story.

Leveson on the 'clear evidence of misreporting on European issues'

Last month, the Mail claimed the EU was planning to ban Famous Five books from schools. The story was fiction and described as 'nonsense' by the EC in the UK. But when an MEP sent a letter to the readers' editor at the paper, he refused to publish it on the grounds that the original report:

may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them

In fact, it didn't suggest banning books in any words - the report didn't include the word 'book' at all.

This is the latest thing the EU has been accused - wrongly - of wanting to ban. See also jam jars, selling a dozen eggs, cars from town centres, milk jugs, classic cars, shopping bags, Britain, kids from blowing up balloons and so on. It's not just non-existent bans - it's also half-truths about flying flags and pouring dead bodies down the drain.

When Express editor Hugh Whittow gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry, he stated firmly:

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

When asked about a front page story '75% say: 'Quit the EU now'', Whittow accepted they did twist things. Robert Jay QC asked if the headline was misleading given that the 75% who apparently say 'Quit the EU now' included 47% saying renegotiate membership. Whittow replied:

I accept that from what you say.

Almost exactly one year before Leveson's report was published, Patrick O'Flynn, the Express' chief political commentator, claimed:

Over the course of the past year every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified.

Lord Justice Leveson says in his report (p.687):

Articles relating to the European Union, and Britain’s role within it, accounted for a further category of story where parts of the press appeared to prioritise the title’s agenda over factual accuracy.

He concluded:

there is certainly clear evidence of misreporting on European issues...

The factual errors in the examples above are, in certain respects, trivial. But the cumulative impact can have serious consequences...

there can be no objection to agenda journalism (which necessarily involves the fusion of fact and comment), but that cannot trump a requirement to report stories accurately. Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code explicitly, and in my view rightly, recognises the right of a free press to be partisan; strong, even very strong, opinions can legitimately influence the choice of story, placement of story and angle from which a story is reported. But that must not lead to fabrication, or deliberate or careless misrepresentation of facts. Particularly in the context of reporting on issues of political interest, the press have a responsibility to ensure that the public are accurately informed so that they can engage in the democratic process. The evidence of inaccurate and misleading reporting on political issues is therefore of concern. The previous approach of the PCC to entertaining complaints only where they came from an affected individual may have allowed a degree of impunity in this area.

(Hat-tip to Gareth)

Leveson on the 'discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced' reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.  

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as 'Muslim Only Public Loos', 'Terror Target Sugar', 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' and 'Muslim Plot To Kill Pope'. 

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including 'Swan Bake', 'Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys' and 'Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay...because he goes to the GYM' all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672): 

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

 

'Chubby arms'

MailOnline headline, 6:55pm:

Mail headline two hours later, after lots of critical comments below the article and on Twitter:

'In fact...her father is still alive'

A correction in today's Daily Mail explains that someone they said was dead is, in fact, alive:

An article in Tuesday's paper said that the parents of Tory MP Fiona Bruce had both died after being placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

In fact, Ms Bruce informs us that, while this was true of her mother, her father is still alive six months after she refused permission for him to be put on to the controversial system.

This is not the first time the Mail has made this mistake - in 2010 they referred to the 'late' Tony (father of Fern) Britton and to the 'late' Sylvia (mother of Carole) Caplin when both were very much alive.

Sorry we said you were a soft-porn actress

The Mail has published this apology today:

Our serialisation of a biography of Mick Jagger in July erroneously described model and Brazilian TV presenter Luciana Gimenez Morad as a soft-porn actress. It also said that she had received a lump sum payment from the star after their son was born.

In fact, while she does receive monthly child support, she neither requested nor received a lump sum. We apologise to Ms Gimenez Morad.

'Supplanting reality' with Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips, 18 November 2012:

fabrications, fantasies and falsehoods take on a life of their own  and can come to represent a settled view which, despite being without any foundation whatever, starts to supplant reality altogether.

Melanie Phillips, 26 September 2011:

Christmas has been renamed in various places ‘Winterval'.

'Bland'

In the latest stunning exclusive from the 'newspaper website of the year', MailOnline reveals that a woman who once won Celebrity Big Brother has been shopping for a sofa. Not only that - and make sure you're sitting down for this - but...

Hanna Flint's article begins:

Her personality is as bland as the colour of her coat.

So it comes as no surprise to see Chantelle Houghton admire a sofa in the same beige shade.

Whether someone writing about a coat and a sofa being a similar colour should be throwing around the insult 'bland' is open to question.

But if the people at MailOnline think that Houghton is so 'bland' it seems curious they've mentioned her in 131 articles this year, including 59 since 1 September.

(Hat-tip to Helen Lewis)

Mail refuses to publish letter denying 'EU wants to ban Famous Five books from schools' story

On 7 November, the Mail claimed that the EU was planning to ban Famous Five books from schools. As the report referred to in James Chapman's story made no mention of books, banning books, Enid Blyton or anything similar, this was standard anti-EU scaremongering. A spokesman from the EC in the UK - quoted at the end of the story - said it was 'nonsense'.

MEP Mary Honeyball decided to write to the Mail:

Sir,

RE: Now Brussels takes aim at the Famous Five! Books portraying ‘traditional’ families could be barred

The article by James Chapman (Mail 7/11/2012) claiming that the EU could be planning to ban books portraying stereo typical family values is misleading in the extreme. It was incorrect to suggest that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels does not have legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools; it is a matter for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee report to which your article refers does not suggest banning books- and in any case this is certainly not something which would be legally binding.

Even in areas where the report does call for EU level action and where such action would be legislatively possible, it could only be done if the European Commission makes a formal proposal. In addition, the European Parliament as a whole and also a large majority of Member States must then adopt it.

I hope this important point clarifies the inaccuracies I refer to in your report.

Yours Sincerely

Mary Honeyball MEP
Labour spokesperson in Europe on culture media and sport and gender and equality

The reaction of the Mail's Readers' Letters Editor was this (Sarah is Mary's press officer):

Dear Sarah,

I’m guessing James Chapman knows a bit more about the byzantine workings of the European Parliament and its committees than Mary Honeyball does.

Regards,

readers’ letters editor

This unhelpful, rather snotty reply is not particularly unusual from the Mail - see their reaction when challenged over the use of Winterval last year.

Mary was then given a longer explanation as to why they would not publish her letter:

I eventually decided against it on the grounds that it is by no means incorrect that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels may not have direct legal power to intervene on which books are available in UK schools – but you would have to be very naïve not to appreciate the way in which such a thing might become a matter of no choice for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee looking at this subject definitely exists and has published a report. It may not have suggested in so many words banning books (that might make it look very unpopular) but it has criticised them – and we’re not unfamiliar with the way in which such things begin as criticism and move on towards calls for a ban. After all, to these MEPs, what else are their criticisms for?

It may, of course, be something which isn’t legally binding today – but tomorrow? And that’s all our story warns about.

We’re well aware that this discussion may be at an early stage and ‘EU level action’ would require ‘a European Commission formal proposal’ etc, etc, but we like to warn people well in advance just what those underemployed ‘representatives’ are getting up to in Brussels: forewarned is forearmed.

It seems that although he accepts there is no recommendation to ban books (despite Chapman's original article referring to 'proposals') he thinks it might possibly happen one day at some point in the future and therefore he can't publish a letter challenging the story on the basis of what has actually been said in the report. It's not as if this is a response to a complaint, and the Mail is being asked to publish a retraction in their corrections column. This is just a letter from an MEP - and one that they are scared of letting their readers see.

The Mail's Star Trek/Wars confusion

From the corrections column in today's Daily Mail:

William Shatner was of course in Star Trek not Star Wars as a feature in Friday’s paper wrongly stated.

'Exactly what happened'

Yesterday, Daily Mail Sport tweeted a link to an article claiming Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini had fallen asleep during his team's recent game against Tottenham Hotspur:

MailOnline's Martin Domin wrote:

Manchester City have yet to hit the heights of their Premier League winning campaign last season but they haven't been so bad to send anyone to sleep.

But that is exactly what happened at the Etihad Stadium on Sunday when City boss Roberto Mancini appeared to nod off during injury time in the first half.

And it's not as if his side were winning at the time - Tottenham were in front thanks to a Steven Caulker header.

Thankfully for City's title hopes, Mancini woke from his slumber in time to deliver a half-time team talk that inspired his men to victory after goals from Sergio Aguero and Edin Dzeko.

But if you try to click on that link now, you get a 'The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available' error page.

Why?

Probably because Mancini didn't actually fall asleep (from Kiimi):

As the Guardian's 'as it happened' report of the match explained:

45 min+1: Aguero takes the ball on his chest masterfully in the box. He finds Silva, who works a slide ball through to Zabaleta. His shot is saved though. The cameras cut to Mancini in his dug out. He looks momentarily interested, sees Zabaleta's shot, then rolls his eyes, slumps in his chair and goes back to talking to himself.

(Hat-tip to Ste)