Here we go again...

I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2010):



















I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2009):















I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2008):

'Lack of care' (cont.)

When the Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint about the Daily Star in September, it said:

...the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

The PCC is always telling us that adjudications are a serious punishment. Just yesterday, blogger Jamie Thunder published an interview with the PCC's public affairs director Will Gore which said:

One common criticism of the PCC is that it has no power to fine newspapers for serious or repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct, but Gore says that this “massively underestimates” the impact of the PCC’s adjudications on newspapers and editors.

Because we would hate to 'massively underestimate' the power of the PCC, we must assume that the Star has been ever-so careful to make sure the same 'lack of care' has not been present in other front page stories since that adjudication.

Right?

Well, they didn't do very well with the 'Chile mine to open as theme park' one. Or with the two 'reality TV' headlines on the same day which weren't exactly true either. And then there was the 22 October one about someone being 'out of X Factor' despite, at time of writing, that person still being 'in' X Factor.

And here's today's Daily Star:


Any similarity to the latest edition of new! magazine which, like the Star, is owned by Richard Desmond, is purely coincidental:


(As if that wasn't enough cross-promotion, one new! columnist was recently explaining how 'his friend' Richard Desmond would do 'fantastic things' at Channel Five.)

Essentially, today's Star is simply an advert for today's new!. The front page article even ends with the words:

To read the full story, buy new! magazine out now.

But the 'full story' - if it can even be called that - is already in the Star. Is reality TV 'star' Amy Childs really Peter Andre's 'new love', as claimed on the front page and in Gemma Wheatley's article?

Peter, 37, told new! magazine: “Amy has a massive following and has the potential to be a huge star. I’m meeting her in a couple of weeks.”

So his 'new love' is someone he hasn't even met? And previously he has said:

I do know that Amy is only 20 years old and therefore a little bit young for me! I’m very flattered but I think dating someone 17 years younger than me might be a bit weird.

So if she isn't his 'new love', how can Jordan be in a 'fury' about it? According to this tweet, she isn't.

It appears, then, that none of the Star's front page headline is accurate. Again.

And yet there are still cynics out there who 'massively underestimate' the impact of PCC adjudications...

Woman dyes hair

At one stage today, the Mail website homepage contained eleven 'stories' about The X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. In total, they have published 13 articles about these two shows just today, some of which were spread over pages 10 and 11 of the newspaper.

(By contrast, the Mail has not produced one single article about the death of Jimmy Mubenga, despite their usual obsession with immigration issues.)

But in the 'pointless-stories-giving-free-publicity-to-TV-shows' stakes, Saturday's Sun will take some beating. They went with 'woman dyes hair, prepares for TV show':


Even Sky News presenter Matt Smith was unimpressed. He said, with a sigh:

Yes, that's really on the front of the Sun.

Star thumbs its nose at the PCC

Here's the front page of today's Daily Star:


It's free stuff, reality TV and a bit about Muslims. It's the usual topics and presented in the usual misleading way.

The main headline, apparently an 'exclusive', says 'Cowell: My feud with Cheryl.' Yet in the accompanying article, Cowell is quoted as saying:

"No. Cheryl and I haven’t had a fight, yet!"

So the exclusive about their feud is that they haven't had one.

Just above that on the front page is the headline 'Love-rift Kara quits Strictly' which is enough to make anyone believe Strictly Come Dancing contestant Kara Tointon has quit the show.

But the headline on the accompanying article says:


So from 'quits' to 'may leave'.

Peter Dyke's article says:

Kara Tointon is feared to be on the brink of waltzing away from Strictly.

Ex-EastEnders star Kara Tointon is devastated after her dance partner Artem Chigvintsev ended their fling.

Yesterday she failed to turn up at a dress rehearsal.

Yet at the end, a BBC spokesman says:

“Kara has tonsillitis and had to cut short rehearsals on Friday and postpone her appearance on It Takes Two. She has seen a doctor and received treatment. But she is determined to dance in Saturday’s live show.”

Ah. Now whether Tointon is ill or not, the fact is she hadn't 'quit' the show when the Star published that front page.

When the PCC adjudicated against a Daily Star story on 25 September, they said:

...the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

Therefore, you might think the Star would be more careful about putting totally misleading headlines on its front page. But that would suppose the paper was concerned about that upheld complaint, or the consequences of any future PCC ruling against them.

Instead, they appear to be thumbing their nose at the ineffectual regulator.

Mail hypocrisy over Big Brother

The Mail is trying to make it very clear it hates Big Brother:

Yes. Thank God:

After ten years, the Big Brother freak show is nearing its last hurrah. But first there's one last set of oddballs to put up with.

'Put up with'?

But what the Mail is actually doing is pretending it hates Big Brother while wallowing in every single moment and making sure its readers don't miss a thing.

So their homepage currently looks like this:


And they have an article spread across pages 20 and 21 of the newspaper, with the same 'thank God' headline, which provides pictures and short descriptions of each of the thirteen contestants.

Why give so much coverage to people it claims it can only just about tolerate?

Oh, and then there is:


In fact, the Mail website is so appalled by having to 'put up' with this programme that it has made a banner specifically for it:


This is, of course, typical of the Mail.

They like to claim that the sex in True Blood, or the jokes of Chris Moyles, or the sex in Belle de Jour, or a 'sickening' fight, or Kelly Brook's 'cavorting' with a porn star are all absolutely disgraceful, but then helpfully provides lots of pictures and/or detailed descriptions of them.

And for next 13 weeks, they will feign a superior attitude about Big Brother. They will sneer and look down their nose, but at the same time, they'll be gleefully reporting - and showing pictures of - everything. Beginning with one contestant:

stripping to a pair of lacy pink knickers late last night. The 23-year-old hair stylist...couldn't resist showing off her enviable figure.

Going by the rest of the Mail's leering, Heat-like website, it seems unlikely they find that difficult to 'put up with'.

No, she isn't

With the final series of Big Brother about to begin, the reality TV-obsessed Daily Star will be looking forward to churning out weeks of misleading, recycled headlines.

And they've started with the lies already:


That front page might make you think that Jordan is going to be in the Big Brother house.

But you only need to read the first three words of the 'story' to find out the headline isn't quite accurate:

A Jordan wannabe...

Sigh.

It goes on:

A Jordan wannabe, Jedward style twins and a millionaire are among the 81 hopefuls desperate to enter the Big Brother house tomorrow.

So the Jordan wannabe might not get into the house either. Therefore the correct front page headline should have been 'Someone who claims to look like Jordan might be in Big Bro house'.

And there will be plenty more of this once the series actually begins...

(Hat-tip to Chris)

Daily Star continues to print shameless front page lies

The Daily Star is well-known for putting eye-catching, celeb-obsessed headlines on its front page.

More often than not they neither resemble the story that follows or, more importantly, the truth.

And out of the last seven days, six of the headlines have been outright lies.

On the 4 March, they ran Cheryl and Ashley back together: Secret reunion for the Coles, with a pap picture of them in the back of a car, holding hands and smiling.

But it's deliberately, cyncially deceptive.

The picture was taken in 2008 and the story says they only might get back together.

If you believe the Star's story. Which is based entirely on an anonymous source.

So there's no particular reason why anyone should.

The next day, Friday 5 March, the Star led with (ahem) 'shock new evidence' in the Madeleine McCann case.

The headline was 'Maddie is seen alive on telly'.

That is a shock. Was she? Err:

Viewers wept when footage of a girl who looks just like Madeleine McCann singing in a school choir flashed up during a TV news bulletin.

'Looks like'? So not actually her 'alive on telly' then?

It may be that the next day's story had a grain of truth in it. It does appear that Jordan told GMTV that she is in talks to do a film.

It seems highly unlikely. And whether it actually happens is another thing entirely.

Nonetheless, the Star couldn't resist over-doing it.

Why is it an 'Oscar sensation'?

And even if it did happen, there's not a chance in hell it would be a 'Hollywood blockbuster'.

The Daily Star Sunday went back to the obvious lying with 'Cheryl Strip Show Secret Revealed'.

The story, which unbelievably has two journalists named in the byline, continues the pretence:

Cheryl Cole was left red-faced last night when a male pal blabbed about how she pranced around half-naked during a backstage heart-to-heart.

But then it falls apart - in the third paragraph:

Her day started badly when Danish X Factor judge Soulshock revealed she gave him an eyeful while changing into a revealing bathrobe after her first live performance since splitting with love rat hubby Ashley.

'Strip show'? 'Prancing around naked'? Or woman gets changed in her dressing room?

(The strapline at the bottom of the page 'Cowell's marriage is a joke' is also odd, given he isn't married.)

On Monday, the Star was back to its favourite subject: Jordan.

Jordan fury as Pete romps in front of kids gives the impression that Pete(r Andre) romped in front of the kids.

And romped, in tabloid land, usually means sex.

Once again, the story begins as if that is true:

Jordan is fuming after her ex-husband Peter Andre gyrated with lycra-clad dancers in front of their kids. The dirty dancing dad put on an X-rated show with kids Junior and Princess just feet away.

In fact, Andre had been performing at the IndigO2 Arena, and had danced with of some of his female dancers. Not really a 'romp'.

As for Jordan's 'fury', that all comes from yet another anonymous source.

Tuesday's headline was Jordan and Posh in Oscar party fight.

The Star has pretended two people have had a 'fight' before, when they haven't - see Vinnie Jones and Sisqo, Alex Reid and Peter Andre.

The story begins:

Victoria Beckham got rival Katie Price banned from the exclusive Vanity Fair bash by refusing to go if the glamour girl turned up, Hollywood insiders claimed.

So firstly, more anonymous sources. Secondly, even if that were true, it would be hard for them to have a 'fight' when they weren't in the same place.

The story goes on:

Posh encouraged revellers to get boozy with her. By contrast, party girl Jordan stayed sober.

Which is odd, because in another story about Jordan's Oscar night party antics, the Star said:

Jordan...chose to go out drinking with her husband Alex Reid’s Celebrity Big Brother pal Vinnie Jones, 45.

Onlookers at the Chateau Marmont Hotel, where the pair were partying, described Jordan as a “wreckhead” and “rude as hell”. One said: “She was all over the place and it wasn’t a pretty sight.”

Right. So the Star have her both 'sober' and 'all over the place'.

Those anonymous sources just can't be trusted, can they?

Today's front page ignores the Coles and Jordan (shock!) and leads with Jon Venables.

But a more serious topic doesn't mean it's any more accurate.

The article says:

A man has spoken of his terror after he was falsely accused of being James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables.

Innocent dad David Calvert has been the victim of a sick web scam.

Facebook postings, emails, text messages and Tweets all pointed the finger at David being Venables, living in the community under a new identity.

In other words, the headline should be: ''Venables' not outed on Facebook'. Because he hasn't been. As the story explains.

Is it because no one takes the Star seriously that this deliberate, daily deception is allowed to carry on day after day? Is it because the publicity-hungry subjects know there's no such thing as bad publicity?

Or is it that the PCC is just unable and unwilling to hold the press to account? Clause One of the Editor's Code says:

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

How is the Star not breaching that on a daily basis?

Star apologises for front page lie

Back in December, this blog questioned several more Daily Star front page headlines which bore little resemblance to either the story that followed, or the truth.

This included 'Macca versus Mucca on ice', from 23 December. It was accompanied by pictures of Heather Mills and Paul McCartney and was clearly suggesting these two were going to be on the new series of Dancing on Ice. In fact, it was the daughter of McCartney's first cousin once removed and (surprise) not the ex-Beatle who was going to be twirling about in TV dance contest.

And so to today's apology. As this was a major front page story, the apology should have appeared on the front page too. It didn't:

Our December 23 Page One headline 'Macca Versus Mucca On Ice' may have been taken to mean that Heather was to compete against her former husband Sir Paul McCartney in television’s Dancing on Ice, so reigniting the family feud.

As the article stated it is Sir Paul’s second cousin Emily Atack, who is a competitor. In fact she and Heather Mills are on very good terms.

We apologise for this misleading article and any distress we may have caused.

Yes, 'may have been taken to mean...' All entirely accidental, of course. Just like when they (ahem) accidentally implied Peaches Geldof was a prostitute.

They couldn't possibly admit it was - like almost every front page they produce - cynically designed to be an eye-catching headline with not a shred of truth behind it?

How to recycle reality TV show lies, with the Daily Star

With crushing predictability, the Daily Star has run Celebrity Big Brother stories on the front page day after day after sodding day.

Last Wednesday, the front page story was trying to claim that Vinnie Jones was using tactics to stay immune from nomination for eviction. Unlike every other contestant on Big Brother, of course. And by calling him a 'bully', it would suggest his attempts to win aren't working that well.

So it's not exactly a fix.

But then, nor was it when the programme was being fixed for Alex Reid to win a week before.

And if the Star claiming a reality show is fixed sounds familiar, that's because they do it every time one is on. Such as with I'm A Celebrity, which was 'fixed' for Jordan to win, eventhough she, err, didn't.

Or when The X Factor was being 'fixed' for Jedward to win, eventhough they, err, didn't either.


On Thursday 22 January, the front page was about a punch-up between two of the Big Brother contestants. While Vinnie Jones and Sisqo had been mouthing off to each other, they hadn't actually had a punch-up.

But that shouldn't be a surprise, because neither had Alex Reid and Peter Andre when the Star claimed they had, in a pre-series front page on 22 December.

On Friday, one of the first people to be evicted was worrying about 'stolen sex pics'.

Well, possibly. Everything, as always with the Star, came from anonymous sources so chances are it wasn't true.

This is, of course, totally different to the story the Star ran during I'm A Celebrity about Jordan fearing Alex Reid would ruin her career with sex pics. Not sure how someone who spends half her time in public naked gets ruined by that, but it was another anonymous source so it probably wasn't true either. And no such pics have yet come to light.

And it's certainly nothing like the 'Myleene Klass sex pics' story they ran when she was on I'm a Celebrity several years ago.

On Monday, the Star seemed to give up. It put all its favourite front page headline words into a hat and pulled them out at random. The result?

Jordan's BB sex plot 'fix'. What?


Yes, it's another 'fix'. But what is the 'plot' this time? Well, the Star's two journalists (yes, two of them) claimed she wanted partner Alex Reid out of the house so she could shower him with attention. And have sex. So she was asking friends to vote him out. It's neither a fix nor a sex plot and so not really accurate. Even the quote they use from Jordan's Facebook says: 'Sooo missing him, 8 more sleeps'. But if she had wanted him out on Wednesday, as the Star claimed, that would be two more sleeps. Not eight.

But the Star likes a made-up sex plot. Indeed, Katia was involved in one earlier in the series. As was Danielle Bux in the 2009 series of Hell's Kitchen, Sophie Reade in last year's Big Brother, Charley Uchea in the 2007 Big Brother and Nicola McLean in the 2008 I'm A Celebrity.

Today, the headline was Jordan fury at Alex and Nic naked B Bro romp.

And by 'naked' they mean 'Nic' was wearing clothes. And by 'romp' they mean she was covering Alex in spray tan.

Unsurprisingly, that naked romp headline has appeared before too. During the 2008 I'm A Celebrity some of the contestants were accused of having a 'naked jungle romp' which actually amounted to them having a shower.

It's not just that the Star makes up reality TV stories, using sex to make the programmes seem far more interesting to their one-track-mind readers than they actually are. But they then repeat them over and over whenever a new reality show starts. The same bullshit stories, the same misleading headlines, the same lies attributed by anonymous sources.

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.

The Daily Star continues to lie and lie

The Daily Star. More reality TV. More Jordan. More front page headlines that don't resemble the truth.

First, Tuesday. Front-page headline Jordan's Alex and Peter in TV punch-up clearly suggests that Jordan's ex-husband Peter Andre and current boyfriend Alex Reid have been in a fight. On TV.

They haven't.

What might happen is that they might join another Jordan ex (Dane Bowers) in being contestants in the final series of Celebrity Big Brother which starts early next year.

Or, of course, they might not.

The Star's probably-invented insider says:

'It would kick off big time. There would be big trouble as soon as they set eyes on each other.'

But if they aren't in there, then it wouldn't, right? The almost-certainly non-existant source added:

'Who wouldn’t tune in to see those three go toe-to-toe?'

Err, me?

Yesterday, the same basic story, the same front page layout, the same lack of accuracy but different protagonists.

Macca versus Mucca on ice clearly suggests that Paul McCartney and his ex-wife Heather Mills are both going to be taking part in the next series of Dancing On Ice.

And, no, these reality TV shows never, ever end.

'Couple go to war on telly dance show', the sub-head boldly states.

Paul McCartney? On an ice-skating show? Surely not?

No. Of course not.

Yes, Heather Mills has been confirmed a contestant by ITV. But by 'Macca' the Star actually means, err, Emily Atack.

Who?

Blonde Emily, who has starred in Channel 4 sitcom The Inbetweeners, is the daughter of actress and impressionist Kate Robbins, 49, who is Paul’s cousin.

Well, make that Paul's 'first cousin once removed' according to Robbins' Wikipedia entry.

In other words: Mucca versus Macca's distant relative - on ice.

Can't wait.

Is this really today's Daily Star?

Please ensure you are sitting down for this, because it is shocking:


After 19 consecutive appearances, it's the first time since 15 November that Jordan has not been on the front page of the Daily Star.

Surely they haven't finally run out of made-up stories to write about her?

Star continues lying about Jordan, Mail continues publishing pics of her tits

The Daily Star should be renamed the Daily Jordan. The tawdry rag has had the over-inflated, over-exposed (insert whatever it is you think she does/is here) on the front page for every one of the last six days, and for nine of the last ten.

Is there really nothing more important going on in the world?

And every front page headline is a piece of total fiction. So Jordan's 'girl on girl jungle lust' didn't exist. Her 'fumble in the jungle' didn't happen either and was her having a shower.

The next day they revealed:


The Star said she had:

let slip she is doing I’m A Celebrity to impress her ex-husband.

'Let slip'?

She told OK! magazine: 'Hopefully he’ll watch the show and realise what a decent person I am.'

So she 'let slip' to magazine with weekly sales of around half a million? A magazine that happens to be owned by Star owner Richard Desmond. Surely this isn't just some lame cross-promotional fluff is it?

For the full interview with Kate, see this week’s issue of OK! magazine out now.

Oh, it is.

But even in the excerpts the Star publishes, she says neither she wants Pete back, or that she wants to re-marry him. Indeed, she quite clearly says the opposite:

She said: 'I’m 100% not looking for love. The producers told me they’re putting a fittie in there, but I’m quite happy with the relationship that I’m in.'

The next day there was no pic, but her name still appeared in the headline:


Star front pages about 'fixed' reality shows emerge at least once per series (for Big Brother, X Factor, or whichever series is on at that time). But did I'm A Celebrity contestant Camilla Dallerup really reveal the, ahem, 'TV show's dark secret' as the sub-head suggests? Is there a direct quote where she says 'fix'? Take a guess...

On Friday, the front page was this:


The side-bar shows the Star is already running stories on Celebrity Big Brother, so that will be the paper's next obsession. The main headline is another lie though, and also, given the lack of punctuation, nonsense. But did she says she would quit? Not quite:

I’m absolutely ready to leave. I’ve had enough.

'Ready to leave' is not exactly the same as 'I'll quit' though, is it?

And then today:

At least the punctuation is correct. And there's a weird bit of innuendo too. But did she definitely say she was going to die on the reality show? Not quite:

She cried: 'I am petrified I’ll die. Please don’t let me fall. I feel like I’m being executed every day.'

Lots of people are petrified of dying. That doesn't mean it should be on the front page of what is supposed to be a newspaper.

Perhaps a dossier on all this should be sent to the Press Complaints Commission (for all that's worth). This is front page lie after front page lie. It's not accidental, it's a deliberate ploy to sell more papers and to hell with the truth.

Clause 1 of the Code of Practice says:

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information

So how does all this muck not violate that?

And it's not just the Star who are obsessed with Jordan either. The Mail, which regards itself as the absolute model of middle-class reserve and good taste, now has a website which doesn't give a toss about any of that. It's become dedicated to celebrity flesh, reaching the nadir in the two upskirt pictures it has run this week. On top of that, it has now decided to publish as many pictures of Jordan's tits as it possibly can.

On Wednesday, Jan Moir wrote an attack on Jordan calling her - apparently without irony:

as charming as leprosy.

She accused her of 'whining' and 'self justification'. Also without irony. Moir also referred to her as:

rapacious, publicity-mad, boobilicious madam... KP Nutty... humourless, balloon-breasted, great, roaring She-Chav... ghastly... she looks like a toothy Donald Duck in an Alice Cooper wig. Five minutes after stepping out of a sheep dip of fake tan...

And the article comes with five pictures of Jordan just so you can see how 'balloon-breasted' she is.

The same day, another article included no fewer than 13 pictures of her and there were 13 more in following day's update, including this one, for which there is simply no excuse:


That can now be added to the many charges against Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke and his claim that 'news is far more important to us than showbiz'.

No, Martin, half-naked women are far more important to you than anything.

Star repeats the same I'm A Celebrity stories it made up last year

So, sigh, the new series of I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here (IAC) - the show that's launched a thousand panto careers - has begun. The Express, Star, Metro and Mirror have it on their front pages today. The Mail had the faces of several of the - ahem - slebs on their front cover last week.

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.

Oh joy.

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.