Woman gets older

Not for the first time, the Mail website is taking time to point out that - shock - famous people get older too.

Apparently, someone who is now 41 doesn't look as young or 'fresh-faced' as they did when they were 20:


So the Mail have got their hands on a pap shot of Erika Eleniak eating lunch and think it's worth pointing out she doesn't look quite like she did when made-up for a TV show over twenty years ago.

But Daily Mail Reporter hasn't even got the simple facts right in this non-story. There are two mistakes in the first two sentences.

If Eleniak was first in Baywatch in 1989, that's longer than 'just over ten years' ago.

Moreover, she wasn't in the show until 2002 as they claim - she left in 1992. Since Daily Mail Reporter used IMDB to find out some other details of her career, they should have noticed that as well.

The 'downmarket' Mail

The Daily Star is at it again: putting headlines on its front page which aren't really truthful.

Today's is 'Rooney gets a good kicking - Holidaying player attacked'.

The clear implication is that Wayne Rooney has been physically 'attacked' while on holiday in Dubai.

When the story begins - under the Star's worthless 'exclusive' banner - it makes clear that isn't the case.

At all:

Crocked Wayne Rooney has had a good kicking from Sir Alex Ferguson as he angers fans by lording it in Dubai.

Fiery Fergie showed the star who is boss after his contract strop by putting his comeback on hold.

So it is, at best, a verbal kicking. But was it even that?

The article by Jerry Lawton - of 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury' fame - says:

Boss Sir Alex Ferguson, 68, yesterday revealed the star, currently living it up with wife Coleen in the world’s poshest hotel in Dubai, will not play for another month.

He said Rooney’s injured ankle had not improved because United’s medics had not been able to treat it while he has been soaking up the sunshine...

Club insiders believe fiery Fergie’s decision to put Roo’s comeback on ice is his way of showing the petulant star who is the real star at the club.

Ah, the anonymous 'insiders'. It must be true then.

Except, over in the Mail, there's a report on Ferguson's press conference yesterday that says:

...he is not therefore rushing Rooney back after another setback with his ankle in training. Ferguson told Rooney to take a family holiday...

The Guardian has more of this vicious 'kicking':

The initial diagnosis was that he would be out for three weeks, but the striker has been allowed to go on holiday with his wife, Coleen, to Dubai this week rather than having treatment.

"I think it will be a bit longer," Ferguson said. "He's away at the moment so there's no recovery. He's having a rest. He did his remedial work before he went. Thereafter rest is what he needs and we're quite happy with that."

The saga of a footballer going on holiday with his wife has taken up more column inches than you might have thought possible.

They've been on the front of the Star for four of the last five days. The Sun made them front page 'news' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The Express (twice) and the Mail (once) have also put them on the front page.

But today, the Mail have done their usual thing - pretending to be shocked at the Rooneys' behaviour, while at the same time dispatching a reporter to Dubai to report on their every move. David Jones' article - which appears on pages 14-15 of today's print edition - is a work of staggering inanity:

At 11am, almost to the minute, Coleen would arrive by the pool, take off one of several ­expensive beach blouses and lay face down on her sun-lounger - always the same one.

Quite what Wayne was doing for the next hour and a quarter or so, we cannot know. At 12.15pm, ­however, he would trudge down to join his wife, and there they would remain for the next five hours...

Gripping stuff, isn't it?

Having spent the week fending off obsequious butlers proffering every imaginable extravagance, however, it’s easy to imagine how ­soccer’s most stinking-rich couple might begin another day in paradise.

‘Morning Wayne,’ chirps Coleen, admiring her ample new curves in the gold-framed mirror above a bed whose mattress has been specially adjusted to a softness of their liking.

Ah yes, her 'ample new curves'. The headline claims she has a 'suspiciously enhanced cleavage'. At one point, Jones says Coleen:

must surely have had her own breasts enlarged judging by before-and-after ­photos published this week

But later he's not so sure:

perhaps even a boob job

With a remarkable lack of self-awareness, he sneers:

If we believe one downmarket tabloid, they have even decided to renew the marriage vows.

'One downmarket tabloid' - not like the Mail, which is obviously above all this drivel. The Mail's website has 'only' 11 articles in five days about two young people sunbathing for five hours a day.

And the Mail would never take anything from such a 'downmarket tabloid' would it? Obviously, there's no link between the Star's front page on Wednesday:


And this Mail website article:



Back to Jones' scintillating prose:

Last Wednesday, I ­happened (by genuine coincidence) to be directed to a sun-lounger near a rock-shaded corner of the pool where the Rooneys were taking a dip, and couldn’t help but notice their discord.

Coleen ordered a pint of draught beer and a vodka and lemonade for Wayne, and they chatted sporadically. Or rather, she did - wrinkling her nose at him to make her point, as is her habit.

He just grunted and wallowed around on a waterproof striped cushion. Not once did they kiss or hug, or even drape an arm around one another.

So he was 'coincidentally' directed to a sun-lounger near the Rooneys, but didn't bother moving. He just stayed there. Watching them talk. Making notes about the food and drinks they ordered. Staring as they sunbathed for five hours.

He must be so proud he doesn't work for one of those 'downmarket' papers.

(Hat-tips to @couragerequired and @RopesToInfinity)

'Irresponsible and cynical'

Mail columnist Sandra Parsons has written the following about X Factor contestant Cher Lloyd:

After, I switched over to The X Factor. This was car-crash TV, with a vulnerable 17-year-old girl in the role of test dummy. Cher Lloyd is clearly troubled and much too thin. Her throat was so sore she couldn't even sing, but she was still put through to the final...

The message this sends to young girls is that if you want to succeed, you need to be unstable, too thin, and to cry at the slightest provocation. But it was obvious Cher was going to be put through, because her fragility guarantees ratings. The question is not if she breaks, but when.

Exploiting this girl is irresponsible and cynical...

Perhaps Parsons should speak to her employers because Lloyd has been mentioned in eight articles that were published on the Mail website today.

In one, Alison Boshoff, like Parsons, talked about Lloyd's similarity to Cheryl Cole.

In another the Mail made the stunning discovery that Lloyd had bought some salad and a drink for her lunch.

In the most pathetic of the lot, the Mail's headline asked 'Is Cher Lloyd acting like a diva already?' Why? Because when she was followed by a herd of paparazzi to a cash machine, she took steps to stop her pin and balance from being caught on camera.

And as Jonathan from No Sleep Til Brooklands pointed out, isn't it hypocritical of the Mail to be taking the 'who does she think she is?' angle, when they think she's important enough to be written about in eight articles in one day?

Moreover, her trip to get some money from a cash machine was so important that the Mail appears to have bought photos from four different agencies to illustrate their non-story.

These articles repeatedly call Lloyd 'thin' or 'stick-thin'. Yet a few days ago, Katy Perry was the subject of ridiculous claims from 'Daily Mail Reporter' (which were eventually removed) that she had a 'protruding belly'.

What message does Parsons think this sends to young girls?

The Mail has also keeps saying that Lloyd appears 'frail' and 'vulnerable'. She can't take the strain. She's struggling to cope.

If the Mail is concerned and thinks those things are true, how does it think it is helping by writing about her so much, by buying photos from photographers who follow her every time she goes outside and by continually commenting on her weight and the way she looks?

What was it Parsons said, again?:

Exploiting this girl is irresponsible and cynical...

The Mail website and 'sleazy pics'

The Mail's celebrity-and-sex-obsessed website is currently running this story:


The Daily Mail Reporter article begins:

Courtney Love has always been provocative but she has taken it too far by posting pictures of herself half naked on Twitter.

The shocking photos show the 46-year-old singer posing in just underwear with her hands covering her breasts.

In another photo she wears tights and knickers but no skirt as she bends over near a mirror.

This is followed by the two 'shocking', 'sleazy' pics in question. Just so you can see for yourself how she has 'taken it too far'. Sigh.

However, the Mail has managed to squeeze yet another story from a photo that someone famous has posted on Twitter, and have tried (but failed) to take the moral high ground over a so-called 'sleazy' pic that they are only too happy to publish.

New contender for 'most pointless Mail website article'

Woman eats dessert (or 'desert', as Daily Mail Reporter says):


Previous pointlessness here.

(via @StopDailyMail)

'Celebrity-mad'

A short item from Press Gazette's Grey Cardigan, spotted by Roy Greenslade:

The Daily Mail’s take on the Wayne Rooney affair:

'Miss Wood, 23, a university lecturer’s daughter, and Miss Thompson, 21, the privately-educated child of a wealthy oil company executive, have turned out to be flag-bearers for the celebrity-mad, lascivious culture that has consumed the nation.'

And at the bottom of the piece?

'Have you got a story on a celebrity? Call the Daily Mail showbusiness desk on 0207 938 6364 or 0207 938 6683.'

Brilliant!

(Meanwhile, the Mail has only managed to squeeze a meagre 26 photos of Miss Thompson into this single article.)

Mail Online's pointless 'stories'

From Charlie Brooker's column in today's Guardian:

Several months ago, I read a small story about a female celebrity who'd been foolish enough to appear in public wearing the same dress two days in succession. This "style slip-up", the article stated, was "the ultimate celebrity faux pas". It described how a crowd of expectant fans was "taken aback" when the star "turned up in exactly the same dress again, accessorised with the same black skyscraper heels." The piece was illustrated with two photographs showing the celebrity sporting her incriminating outfit on two separate occasions, accompanied by the caption 'Looks Familiar'.

But interestingly, the clothes weren't the only familiar thing in the frame. If the dates were to be believed, the strands of hair from her fringe had fallen across her forehead in precisely the same way, two days running. I don't know much about haircuts, as anyone who's ever glanced at my head can tell you. But I know that looked suspicious.

Fortunately for all mankind, I knew someone who'd been present on both occasions. So I asked whether the same dress had been worn on both days. No, it hadn't. Both sets of pictures had been taken on day one.

Presumably what happened is this: rather than sending a reporter to attend the event itself, the paper had received a batch of photos from a picture agency and interpreted them back in the office. But tragedy struck when someone got the dates muddled up, and a "style slip-up" was subsequently believed to have occurred when it hadn't. Easy mistake to make. But hang on: what about that description of a crowd of "expectant fans" being "taken aback" by "the ultimate celebrity faux pas"? That was just a cute detail the reporter had invented. Some people they'd wished into existence.

No prizes for guessing the 'small story' in question is on the website of the Daily Mail.

Mail Online editor Martin Clarke has said:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.

No doubt that explains a made-up story about the wardrobe of someone on The X Factor. But what of the rest?

Blogger Atomic Spin has asked whether a MailOnline article about a woman dropping her phone while walking in London is the most pointless celebrity story ever published by the Mail.

Yes, the woman in question is Karen Gillan from Doctor Who, and the Mail have managed to find a snap taken at exactly the moment she bends over the pick it up. But still, this is the 'story':

Doctor Who star Karen Gillan nearly broke her mobile phone after getting over-excited during a shopping trip in London yesterday.

The Scottish actress, 22, was chatting on her mobile in busy Oxford Street when she spotted a friend across the road.

After dashing across the road to greet her pal, the redhead dropped her phone in the path of traffic in the excitement of it all.

The excitement, indeed.

But is it the most pointless story the Mail website has ever run? Well, there is so much competition it is hard to tell.

After all, they managed to write two articles within a couple of days about the number of toes on a woman with, err, ten toes.

And let's not forget essential stuff like woman goes out in low cut dress, woman does yoga and boy has same colour hair as his dad.

During the time period all this rubbish has been written, the Mail has managed only one article about the floods in Pakistan.

The good folk at the Mailwatch Forum have been keeping note of pointless Mail stories for quite a while. They have spotted such Pulitzer Prize-worthy gems as:

• Rain turns grass green.
• Swimwear model wears swimwear.
• Woman laughs.
• Woman gets wet in rain.
• Woman doesn't take price stickers off shoes.
• Woman buys yoghurt.
• Woman goes to petrol station.
• Woman wears a T-Shirt.
• Woman dyes hair.
• Woman wears shorts in hot weather.
  

Almost all of these articles are essentially for the Heat crowd. The Mail has bought pics of some celebrity that they think will attract visitors to their website. There is no news value - usually the Daily Mail Reporter (or sometimes Georgina Littlejohn) will describe what the person is wearing, make some snide remark about whether they have got thinner or fatter or older, and the rest will be re-heated stuff from an earlier article.

And sometimes, as with Brooker's example and the one with the toes, the story isn't even true.

The Mail's website is the most visited UK newspaper website.

Star publishes front page apology for front page story

On Saturday, the Daily Star ran this front page lead:


The article claimed:

Telly babe Christine Bleakley has set her heart on marrying football ace Frank Lampard on an Italian-style gondola in Las Vegas.

The lovestruck pair checked out marriage packages during a recent hush-hush trip to the gambling city before Frank returned to pre-season Premier League training with Chelsea.

Sources claimed the “head-over-heels” couple stayed at the huge Venetian hotel, which has more than 4,000 suites.

But it seems they didn't check the accuracy of this story before publication either because today, the paper ran this apology:

Frank Lampard and Christine Bleakley have no intention to get married at this time.

They did not travel to Las Vegas to make arrangements for a wedding as we reported on Saturday.

We apologise for any embarrassment this may have casued to Frank and Christine and their families.

So another of the Star's front page 'celebrity' stories based on anonymous sources turns out not to be true. Who'd have thought?

Yet not only have they corrected the story very swiftly, they've printed that apology on the front page:


No, it doesn't have the prominence of the original, but it's better than this feeble effort.

It's almost certain that the high profile of Lampard and Bleakley have played a big part in both the speed and position of this correction.

But it shows front page apologies can be (and indeed, should be) published for front page stories and the Star should be congratulated for that.

However, at time of writing, the original article is still on their website and the apology isn't.

Moreover, if the Star didn't write so much crap on the front of their paper in the first place, then such apologies wouldn't be necessary.

(Hat-tip to Conradder and Anton)

The Mail tuts while its website leers

Your starter for ten: which person of international importance has been mentioned in 43 Mail Online articles since the start of June?

Answer: Katy Perry.

As Perry is currently in a relationship with Mail hate figure Russell Brand, you'd think they'd stay well clear. But they simply have to report on her when she continually does such newsworthy things.

For example, when she wears a dress. Or when she wears a dress. Or wears glasses. Or a dress. Or wears a dress. Or goes out - guess what? - wearing a dress.

And those are just some of the fascinating exclusives from the last week.

She's far ahead of the other people the Mail website is currently obsessed with: Kim Kardashian, Kelly Brook and Miley Cyrus are each averaging a meagre one pointless article per day this month.

This is, apparently, the shape of things to come.

According to Peter Kirwan in the Press Gazette, Mail Online has recently opened an office in Los Angeles in order to flood the website with even more wafer-thin celebrity crap.

Kirwan says that the office is being run by Elliot Wagland who has been:

advertising on Facebook for new recruits.

On Facebook? On life-ruining Facebook? The hypocrites.

Kirwan reports:

According to sources at the Mail, the number of US-focused articles running on Mail Online has increased sharply in recent weeks.

Mail Online’s plans could signal a renewed interest in building audiences and revenues in North America among British newspapers.

This seems obvious. As this blog has noted before, there seemed to be very little reason for the Mail to be following every insignificant move of Kardashian - someone with almost no public profile in the UK at all - unless it was trying desperately to attract visitors from America.

And the 'lads' mags' crowd.

The Mail has a bizarre love-hate relationship with lads' mags. Much the same as its attitude to Big Brother: it's a cultural disgrace, but we'll keep you informed of everything that's going on anyway.

The Mail has made it pretty clear it thinks men's magazines are 'explicit' and 'pornographic'. It has happily run criticism of them:

• MP's outrage: 'Give these lewd lads' mags an 18 certificate'
• Lads' mags fuel rise in feckless fathers, say Tories
• Calls for tougher curbs on 'pornographic' lads mags
• Put lads' mags on the top shelf: MPs call for crackdown on 'explicit' titles

As well as having their own columnists speak out against them:

• JAN MOIR: Lads' mags and a toxic culture that treats all women like meat
• 'Mummy, why do those ladies have no clothes on?': Explicit lads' mags should be moved to the top shelf, says an embarrassed mother
• A GCSE in lads' mags? The fantasies they peddle give young men a distorted and dangerous view of women
• How lads' mags are creating a generation of exercise-obsessed men striving for the perfect body
• GCSE pupils studying 'soft porn' lads' magazines
• I just want crisps, not groins and breasts...

Yet while bemoaning men's magazines such as FHM on the one hand, the website happily runs extended adverts for them, and very happily reprints their pictures. Such as here, here and here.

It's not just the pictures. The Mail recently ran pictures and video of a 'provocative' and 'racy' shoot from Esquire.

And they have found it hard to contain their excitement over Kelly Brook's recent appearance on the cover of FHM, embedding the same 'behind the scenes' video of the shoot on not one, not two, but three articles.

The news that Brook will pose for Playboy has been mentioned repeatedly over the last week or so, pointlessly dragged in to such feeble headlines as Kelly Brook puts her legs on show in a leopard print mini dress (but fans will be seeing a whole lot more of her in Playboy).

A James Slack article from February entitled Roll back the raunch: Explicit pop videos 'should be banned before the 9pm watershed' gave sympathetic coverage to a report making recommendations about restricting access to raunchy pop videos and lads' mags. But the Mail gave the game away by illustrating it with a picture of a pop singer in knee high boots.

And they have never been slow to embed these 'sexually provocative' and 'raunchy' pop videos on their site either. For example, here, here and here. These articles usually have 'scroll down to watch the video' in bold and/or caps somewhere near the top, just so you don't miss out.

But while the Mail calls the BBC a disgrace for having adult material freely available on its iPlayer, material the Mail calls 'explicit', 'sexually provocative' and 'soft porn' is freely available on their site. Indeed, it is cynically included to make sure it attracts attention and visitors.

Of course, the Mail is a business. It knows sex sells - the more visitors it gets to its website, the easier it is to sell advertising space. So maybe the bottom line simply means more, err, bottoms online.

But whereas the newspaper promotes itself as moral, middle class and conservative, the website is like a downmarket version of Heat.

With the Mail Online's new LA office - which has been advertising for 'a freelance showbiz picture researcher' - it seems this gulf is set to get wider still.

(Big hat-tip to Tom_MKUK and others at the Mailwatch Forum.)

Groundbreaking news from the Mail

Today's Mail has an absolutely fascinating news story on the right-hand side of its front page:


Girl who married Anne Diamond's husband leaves him...for a woman.

So a woman who is married to someone who used to be married to someone who used to be on telly starts a new relationship.

Astounding stuff, isn't it?

The rest of this tale of the utmost national importance is on page seven.

Just for comparison, remember the Mail's coverage of the Haiti earthquake? They never put it on the front page of the paper - which even the Daily Star managed to do - and the day after the disaster struck, the Mail's coverage was on pages 12 and 13.

But this drivel is on pages one and seven.

Mail Editor Paul Dacre gets paid well over £1m a year for making decisions like that.

Why do our young worship 'celebs'? asks pedlar of celeb crap

Why do our young worship 'celebs'? asks the Express on its front page today. That question comes just below a money-off offer for celeb magazine OK! and a picture of celeb Kerry Katona who hasn't actually been in the (serious) news recently. Or ever.


Why do our young worship 'celebs'?

The Express' proprietor is Richard Desmond, who also owns the Daily Star.

In the last week, the Daily Star's front pages lead stories have been about Kerry Katona, Jordan, Steven Gerrard and his wife, Jack Tweed, Kerry Katona, Jordan and (shock) Jordan.

Desmond also owns OK! Magazine, whose tagline is 'First for celebrity news'. You can get £1 off OK! with a voucher in today's Express. Northern and Shell, Desmond's company, says:

OK! now dominates the British celebrity market and is on its way to becoming first for celebrity news worldwide.

New! Magazine is also part of the Desmond stable and is also full of cheap celebrity gossip and is another waste of good trees. The current issue of New! has Katona, Jordan and Victoria Beckham on the front.

And then there's Star magazine, which is also owned by Desmond. Its website has the tagline 'The hottest celeb website!' (they like their exclamation marks, don't they?). The current issue has Jordan, Beckham and Cheryl Cole on the cover. Desmond's company website says:

Star readers look for exclusive, unposed pictures that show celebrities enjoying life to the full in their own environment... Star is building sales as young women desert more conventional women's magazines for a celebrity-based alternative.

Yes. Why do our young worship 'celebs'?

The desperate, dishonest Daily Star

The Daily Star - the fourth best-selling national daily 'newspaper' - appears to have boosted its sales through three tactics:

1. Putting Jordan on the front page almost every day.
2. Lying, especially with totally misleading front page headlines.
3. Costing only 20p.

The front page on 15 April relied on all of the above.

Jordan holiday boobs horror, it screamed. 'Breast implants 'explode' on Red Sea scuba dive,' said the sub-head.

Have her implants really exploded during a scuba dive? No, of course not:

Jordan has been warned her giant boobs could blow up or drown her on her Egyptian diving holiday.

The glamour babe is desperate to take the plunge in the Red Sea with dive-mad husband Alex Reid.

But she has been told her 32DD treasure chest could drag her beneath the waves as her silicone implants are heavier than water.

So the front page 'exclusive' is actually: woman with fake boobs wants to scuba dive on holiday. It's not quite clear where the 'horror' is in that.

Two days later they claimed that Jordan was to replace Simon Cowell as a judge on Britain's Got Talent - despite having absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that is the case.

The day after, she was the focus of their 'volcanic ash cloud' coverage. The next day, there was more tedious speculation about her marriage.

On 20 April, they ran a front page headline Jordan baby's bruised face and body which was based on an article 'by' Peter Andre in New! magazine. At the end it said:

Read Pete’s full column in new! magazine, out now.

But it doesn't say that New! just happens to be owned by Daily Star owner Richard Desmond. Funny that.

So Jordan has been on the front page for five out of the last seven days. This daily diet of lies about a totally uninteresting celeb is obviously in the paper's interests as its circulation is increasing. And no doubt the publicity hungry subject isn't too bothered either.

But how can it continue to get away with it? Why does the PCC let them print such inaccuracies day in, day out?

The real concern is that when the Star tries to turn to a serious subject, it makes a complete mockery of that too.

So today's front page is:


Note the use of 'terror' - like the earlier use of 'horror' - to grab the attention, but as with the Express' obsesssion with 'chaos' and 'fury', it ends up reducing the impact and meaning of the word. If you call a slight concern about a fake tit 'horror', what do you call the genocide in Rwanda?

The start of Emma Wall's article continues the charade:

A stricken British Airways jumbo jet is engulfed by "flames" after flying into a deadly cloud of volcanic ash.

These dramatic pictures of a stricken passenger jet show the horrifying reason why flights were grounded for five days.

For anyone who has relatives flying back to the UK this could be frightening - assuming they take the Star seriously, which is a big assumption.

But then the Star reveals the truth:

The images are part of a gripping TV reconstruction tonight of a near disaster when BA flight 009 flew into volcanic dust in 1982.

So the story is: here's some pictures from a TV reconstruction about a thirty-year-old event.

To try and imply with their front page 'terror' headline that this actually happened, when people are flying for the first time in nearly a week is exploitative, dishonest and desperate.

So much like any other edition of the Daily Star, then.

UPDATE (1.30pm): The Guardian is reporting that today's Star has been removed from newsagent shelves at Gatwick and Manchester airports because of this 'plane terror' front page. Gatwick airport's director of communications, Andrew McCallum, said:

'We thought it was inappropriate at this point in time after six days of disruption and as people were anxious to get to their holiday destination or to return home to have these sort of computer-generated images on the front page.

'We had a discussion with other airports having seen the Daily Star's front page today and decided to remove it. It was in our view not appropriate.'

More shameless lying from the Star

Even by the recent standards of lies on the Star's front page, today's may just top the lot:


This would would seem to suggest that Peter Andre and ex-wife Jordan had had a 'bust-up' in a 'nightclub', where one of them revealed their 'hidden feelings' in an 'astonishing rant'. The pictures have been deliberately selected to show the two looking angry and weary at night.

But the story by Gemma Wheatley isn't even close to that:

Bitter Peter Andre has been branded a spoilsport after refusing to let Jordan lookalikes into his show.

The star, 37, was forced to act after a radio station handed out free tickets to fans who were the spitting image of his ex-wife Kate Price, 31.

Ten big-busted beauties were handed £28 front row seats at Liverpool Philharmonic Hall.

Bosses at the local Radio City station were eager to see the look on Peter’s face when the curtain went up.

But when Peter and his management found out about the stunt they vowed to turn away anyone who looked like Kate at the door.

So a radio station tried to get a bit of free publicity by pulling a stunt where they would get Jordan look-a-likes into a Andre gig and his management stopped it.

That's it.

Where is the 'astonishing rant'?

Where is the 'bust-up' between Andre and Jordan, when she actually hasn't said or done anything to do with this 'story'?

And since when is the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall called a 'nightclub'?

Given that all these stories are about a named person, the chances of any third-party complaint to the PCC getting anywhere are slim-to-none. Yet surely they have to stop a paper writing such obviously misleading headlines, designed to sell papers (it's working) through deliberate lying.

Don't they?

Babies that don't exist, affairs that didn't happen, news that's six years old: welcome to the Daily Star

The Daily Star were up to their old tricks again yesterday with a totally misleading front page headline implying Cheryl Cole had had a miscarriage:

Anton covered the story in full, where there was no baby, let alone one that was 'lost'. Essentially, Cole had wanted to start a family, but having separated from her husband, now won't.

Amazing stuff.

Today, they're implying she's got a new boyfriend:


Jerry Lawton's article maintained the pretence for a while:

Smitten Cheryl Cole has poured out her heart about the new man in her life.

The Girls Aloud beauty stunned millions as she revealed her true feelings for hunky Black Eyed Peas rapper Will.i.am live on air.

But then:

She cooed about how the 34-year-old music producer was 'absolutely inspiring, fantastic, futuristic, creative'.

And she raved: 'I would work with Will for the rest of my life if I could. He is everything you would want from a producer, and also from a person. He’s a lovely person'.

So when the Star said 'new man' they actually meant someone Cole has known for over two years.

And when they said 'in her life' they meant he's worked on her album.

And when they said 'World Exclusive', they actually meant they've used what she said in an interview with Fearne Cotton on Radio 1 that was broadcast around 10 hours before they went to press.

They also claim Will.i.am has a crush on Cole, but that's not 'new' either, having been reported in the News of the World two weeks ago.

The Star was having a few problems understanding the word 'new' on Monday too:


And what was this 'new text sex shock' involving David Beckham?

David Beckham’s sex texts to Rebecca Loos were as X-rated as the ones Tiger Woods sent his porn star mistress, it was claimed last night.

Claimed, incidentally, by Piers Morgan, so it's obviously true and nothing to do with the slimy ex-editor not liking the footballer.

But 'new'? The alleged Beckham-Loos affair happened in 2004.

A couple of days before that, another shock, this one involving (surprise) Jordan:


See the headline template? '[Celeb] in new [eye-catching scandal] shock'.

The implication of this one is that newly-married Jordan has had an affair with her ex, Peter Andre. 'New affair shock'. The picture of them together. It all paints a picture.

The actual story?

Katie Price suffered humiliation in the High Court yesterday as she admitted wrongly accusing her ex-manager of bedding Peter Andre.

The glamour girl was ordered to pay celeb agent Claire Powell an undisclosed sum in slander damages, believed to be well into six figures.

Oh. Nothing like what was implied then?

The Mail also covered news of the payout, saying rather coyly:

the BBC had 'quite sensibly' edited the slanderous claim from the show, but the story still ran in several newspapers.

Who could they mean?


Indeed, that article is still accessible, despite the claim being, in the Mail's own word, 'slanderous'.

Surely it should be removed and surely the PCC should be demanding every newspaper that made the claim apologise, without the need for Powell to complain?

But back to the Star, and to David Beckham for one last dreadful front page, implying Mrs Beckham is pregnant:


Another 'World Exclusive' as the Star reports on the Beckham's 'secret joy' over 'World Cup baby'.

Except, as if you needed telling, there is no baby, again:

David Beckham will battle back from his injury hell helped by the baby girl he has always craved.

Crocked football ace David Beckham, ruled out of thus summer’s World Cup with a snapped Achilles tendon, has set a different secret goal.

And the quotes that follow are from an anonymous source.

So the Star's 'World Exclusive' appears to be: married couple have sex.

These stories and these misleading front pages really are the most unbelievable junk.

But they will continue to happen while the Star's circulation inexplicably continues to rise.

Breaking news...

A few days ago, Sky News was declared News Channel of the Year by the Royal Television Society.

It was badly timed, given Sky's disgraceful attempt to shut down debate on the 'Press standards, privacy and libel' report.

And now: breaking news from Sky. This is, according to them, the second most important story in the world at the moment.

What is it?

Err, two men don't shake hands:

Recommended reading

5CC's excellent Did the Government really secretly plot to change the face of Britain? is a thorough dissection of all the nonsense that has appeared in the tabloids repeatedly over the last few months on the non-existent Government immigration plot.

The latest example of that was Melanie Phillips in the Mail yesterday, which Anton commented on at Enemies of Reason.

Anton has also exposed the Express' ludicrous Now migrants get a 'VIP club' front page - another immigration scare, another load of rubbish.

Over at Angry Mob, Uponnothing has looked at the Mail's latest target: disabled car parking spaces. He's also given his take on the MPs report on the press, and done an entertaining Daily Mail Reporter-spoof attack on Paul Dacre.

Back to 5CC and he's examined why a recent grant to the Christian Police Association has attracted none of the tabloid coverage that the Black, Trans or Muslim Police Associations regularly endure.

On a lighter note, Chris Spann wonders why the Mail seems so obsessed by the fact that Victoria Beckham has bunions. They've mentioned them 18 times in the last three months.

The Independent: tabloid by size, tabloid by content

When the News of the World ran a front page story about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie 'splitting up' on 24 January, other media outlets fell over themselves to follow up.

There didn't seem to be much evidence of any of them stopping to ask whether it was true or not. They just wanted to get in on the story as quickly as possible.

Today, the couple's lawyer announced they were going to sue the News of the World over what he called 'false as well as intrusive' claims.

He said:

'The News of the World has failed to meet our clients' reasonable demands for a retraction of and apology for these false and intrusive allegations which have now been widely republished by mainstream news outlets. We have advised them to bring proceedings, which they have now done.'

Following the News of the World's splash, the Mail seemed to think 'everyone' was talking about the story. And a couple of days later, the Mail certainly was talking about it again, reporting the 'ridiculous split' rumours with the same gusto and straight face it reported the, ahem, split rumours ('Will he go back to his ex?') in the first place.

That's not that surprising from an organisation that has become obsessed with paper-thin sleb gossip and sleazy pap shots in a desperate attempt to boost its website visitor numbers.

More surprising was the way the Independent scraped the bottom of the barrel with a dreadful feature on the saga.

That the paper was bothering to dedicate the whole of page nine to something that might have happened, but which equally might not have happened, shows how far it has fallen since Roger Alton took over as Editor.

It's not just that this was purely speculation - and speculation about something so thoroughly unimportant - but the article itself was dreadful.

They had Amy Jenkins, writer of This Life, paying 'tribute' to the relationship which wasn't (and it appears, isn't) actually dead. She wrote:

They seemed to have it all, but, crucially, they got their comeuppance. Now that's entertainment.

It's not immediately obvious what is 'entertaining' about a couple with six kids ending their relationship. But you just get the impression Jenkins simply doesn't like Jolie.

She says:

Jolie, arguably, has never made a good film

Of course, any opinion is 'arguable', but is that really fair? Certainly in recent years she has made critically-acclaimed films such as A Mighty Heart and Changeling, and Kung Fu Panda, Beowulf, Wanted and Mr & Mrs Smith have their fans.

Yes, she's made a lot of dross, but then Jenkins was responsible for This Life +10 which The Times described as:

Terrible. Witless. Insubstantial. Saggy. Navel-gazing. Or, as Anna might have put it in better days, after taking a large gulp of red, “Total f****** b******s.”

Glass houses and all that. She goes on to say:

Neither Pitt nor Jolie has won an Oscar.

That's true in Pitt's case - although he has had two nominations. But what about the Best Supporting Actress statuette Jolie won for Girl, Interrupted? Conveniently (possibly idiotically), Jenkins has forgotten about that because that wouldn't fit her agenda - which appears to be to blame Jolie for everything. How very Daily Mail to blame the woman.

She blames Jolie for ruining Pitt's career saying it has:

been pretty much in the pits ever since.

See what she did there?

Yeh, she got it wrong again. In the past five years, Pitt produced the Oscar-winning The Departed, and A Mighty Heart, and starred in Burn After Reading, Babel, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Ocean's Thirteen and Inglourious Basterds, all of which score highly on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yes, they may not be to everyone's taste, but to say that is a career in the pits is clearly nonsense.

It's not just that it's all inaccurate, it's that a supposedly quality newspaper was filling pages with such drivel. A story on the Afghanistan parliamentary elections was given half the space, 16 pages further back. They found room for Jenkins on Monday, but not for an obituary of Jean Simmons, who had died on Saturday.

Now that really is the pits.

The priorities of the Daily Mail

In the last seven days, the Mail has had the antics of John Terry on the front page six times:

(Hat-tip to Political Betting for the above pic)

In the last 23 days, the Mail has had coverage of the Haiti earthquake on the front page this many times:







(That's...umm...none.)

The Mail clearly regards the sex life of a footballer as more important than the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Everyone?

Mail exposes publicity-seeking Z-listers by, err, giving them publicity

From the Mail website today:


Marcus Barnes' article begins:

They've not long left the Big Brother house, but already they're falling over themselves to grab the limelight in typical z-list fashion.

Good job the Mail can see right through these Z-listers and their attention seeking antics. Probably best to ignore them then?

Rather than, say, writing over 500 words about what they're up to and publishing five pictures of them doing it.