Desmond papers disagree over Brucie's future

The headline on the front of today's Daily Star Sunday is 'Brucie: I'm Off! - No new contract for Strictly star':

The online version of the article carries the headline: Bruce to leave Strictly. It explains:

Strictly legend Sir Bruce Forsyth may be set to leave the show.

Brucie, 84, told us he has not signed a new contract for next year’s series.

The Star's sister paper, the Sunday Express, has a slightly different take on what Bruce has said in the same interview. Their front page says 'Brucie: I'm not going to retire' and the story makes clear no decision has been made about Strictly:

The online version, which runs under the headline 'Nice to carry on, to carry on nice Bruce Forsyth' says:

Sir Bruce Forsyth has again ruled out retirement.

Despite suggestions that he may bow out of Strictly Come Dancing this year, the showbusiness legend, 84, says he isn’t planning to leave the stage just yet...

Forsyth, who took a week off from Strictly this year, will decide whether to present the next series when he returns in April from a winter in Puerto Rico, his wife Wilnelia’s home country.

He said: “Who knows how long I will go on for? I could turn around tomorrow and say, ‘I’ve had enough’. It could be in a couple of weeks’ time.

“But at the moment, and with what we’ve been doing, which is to assess each year before we start, I’m certainly not going to retire.

“That’s the last thing on my mind, otherwise I wouldn’t be doing this show at the Albert Hall next year. Retiring is completely out of my mind.”

Sunday Express pays damages over 'fanatics in school' article

Sunday Express, 12 June 2011:

The Guardian, 31 July 2012:

The Sunday Express has apologised and paid damages to a London school it falsely claimed taught an extreme form of Islam.

Northern & Shell's Sunday title published a front-page story on 12 June 2011, headlined "Spies in schools to hunt fanatics", in which it wrongly stated that the King Fahad Academy in Acton, west London, taught extreme Islam.

The article, which was also published on the paper's website, falsely suggested that the academy school had been infiltrated by Islamic fanatics...

The Sunday Express apologised for the article and said it regretted the distress caused. The paper agreed to pay an undisclosed amount in damages and legal costs to the school.

The Bomber Command 'snub'

The front page on the Sunday Express on 17 June screamed 'BBC snubs our Bomber boys':

The 'exclusive' by Marco Giannangeli and David Stephenson revealed:

The BBC was facing an angry backlash last night over its decision to snub the unveiling of the Bomber ­Command Memorial next week.

While the Queen will be honouring the 55,000 Bomber Boys who gave their lives for the country, BBC1 will be showing repeats of Cash In The Attic and Bargain Hunt.

Skip straight to the end of the article, however, and a quote from a BBC spokesman confirms that the BBC News Channel is, in fact, planning to broadcast the service live and BBC2 will broadcast a 50-minute tribute programme at 5pm (repeated at 11.20pm). Furthermore, the spokesman says:

"The Bomber Command Association are happy with our plans and have been working closely with us."

Some 'snub'.

So what's behind this story appearing on the front page? Firstly, the paper's owner - Richard Desmond:

donated £500,000 to the memorial fund to match £500,000 raised by our readers.

Secondly, Desmond owns Channel 5 and wafer-thin attacks on the BBC are not uncommon on the Sunday Express' front pages (see, for example, this and this).

So what is Desmond's Channel 5 doing to honour the Bomber Command? In what way will its coverage surpass that of the BBC?

According to the listings for 28 June on the Channel 5 website, when the midday service takes place the channel will be showing...Extreme Fishing with Robson Green.

Correction: a repeat of an episode of Extreme Fishing with Robson Green.

So Channel 5 isn't broadcasting the ceremony live, unlike the BBC. Will there be a special programme later, similar to the one the BBC is showing?

Nope. There are three different Big Brother programmes, a film about tornadoes, Monkey Life, The Baby With a New Face, Big Body Squad, two hours of soaps...but nothing on Bomber Command.

When will the Sunday Express also report on this 'snub'?

Sunday Express uses photo from 2007 for front page 'exclusive'

The front page of today's Sunday Express contains what the paper claims is an 'exclusive' about Prince Harry:

'Harry back with Chelsy'.

Is he? The article doesn't seem quite so sure:

Prince Harry sparked rumours that he is back with Chelsy Davy after they attended a surprise 22nd birthday party for Princess Eugenie together.

His former girlfriend of five years was among a select few at the intimate dinner at Windsor Castle on Friday night.

A royal insider said: “Prince Harry was there and so was Chelsy. Clearly they are still close. They appeared at ease with each other and were chatting happily together. Whether or not they have rekindled their relationship is anyone’s guess but they certainly seemed very friendly.”

From "anyone's guess" to front page 'exclusive'.

(Moreover, the Mail's Kate Nicholl was claiming last week that Chelsy had a 'moved on'.)

But what of the photo on the front page? It certainly seems to back up the headline.

However, it was actually taken at the Concert for Diana. In 2007. 

The paper almost admits this in the very last line of the story:

She and Harry famously enjoyed a kiss at the concert for his mother Princess Diana in 2007.

But how many people will only see the front page and think that kiss was more recent than five years ago?

Sunday Express' front page 'news' on Pippa

The tabloid obsession with Pippa Middleton continues. The Mail website recently reported the stunning news that she had gone to a nightclub with her boyfriend and, a few days later, that she had received a parking ticket.

Today the Sunday Express runs the front page headline 'Cheeky Pippa ejected from a pub!'

The headline, plus the fact it's on the front page, would suggest that Pippa Middleton has been thrown out of a pub.

But as the page three article by Camille Tominey makes clear, that's completely misleading:

Pippa Middleton's posterior has caused a rumpus in a historic market town and has been booted off a pub sign.

The Bedfordshire hostelry’s landlord was ordered to take it down and rehang the more stately head of Catherine of Aragon...

Regulars at The Queens Head were initially treated to a picture of Kate Middleton to mark the Royal Wedding in April. Then Richard Hammond, who runs the pub with his son Daniel, replaced it with her sister Pippa’s rear after it was pointed out that Kate wasn’t yet queen.

So Pippa wasn't actually 'ejected from a pub' but a photo of her bum has been removed from pub sign.

Hold that front page...

The priorities of the Sunday Express

Last week, the Sunday Express didn't think the bombing and shootings in Norway were important enough to put on their front page:


This Sunday, the paper has decided to lead on the fact that the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Friday broadcast a few swear words ('bullshit' twice, 'bastards' once) in a report about a 'campaign of abuse and intimidation' - including death threats - aimed at ME researchers:


Does Sunday Express editor Martin Townsend really think this is more worthy of a front page splash than the events in Norway?

The 'obsession' with health and safety

In the Sunday Express on 3 July, Nick Ferrari focused his anger on the Health and Safety Executive:

The extraordinary assault on our crippling obsession with health and safety by the very woman who controls the cursed body in charge of it all couldn’t help but bring pots and kettles to my mind and I’m pretty certain most of yours too.

Well, not really, but go on:

Chairman of the Health and Safety Executive Judith Hackitt criticised the jobsworth culture that has robbed our young of a normal childhood, made employers’ lives a complex hell of regulation and inspection and allowed councils to field legions of tax-funded snoopers and petty enforcers.

We can only assume the poor lady had banged her head on a low-hanging flower basket or been partially blinded in a vigorous game of conkers on the day she gave this interview. For she runs the ghastly organisation that has closed playgrounds, had trees felled and even managed to stop tennis fans enjoying Andy Murray’s annual ritual not to get to the Wimbledon final – and she has done for three-and-a-half years!

Any more examples of what her 'ghastly organisation' has done, Nick?

I grew up being transported in a cot in a car, not a special seat that had to have been welded into place... If I needed pills from the doctor the bottle opened with a simple twist. You didn’t need the agility of an Olympic gymnast and strength of a weightlifter to open it. I bought packets of peanuts in the days when they didn’t need “warning: this product may contain nuts” all over them. Most puzzling of all I slept on a mattress that didn’t have the notice “do not attempt to swallow” on it.

All of which led Judith Hackitt to respond:

Nick Ferrari's column (Healthy dose of humbug, SE, 3 July link to external website) highlights part of the problem with the current debate on health and safety.

The term 'health and safety' has become used so widely and wrongly that it has come to stand for a huge range of things which have no relation to managing risks in the workplace.

HSE doesn't exist to shut playgrounds, or cut trees down. We don't have anything to do with children's car seats, or infuriating pill bottle tops. Mattresses, peanuts and conkers have nothing to do with safety at work, and are entirely outside our remit.

And regarding Murray Mount, Mr Ferrari couldn't be further from the truth - rather than pushing for it to be closed we were campaigning for a bit of common sense and making precisely the opposite point - there were no health and safety grounds on which to close it down.

Few would argue that we need to get the focus on health and safety back on managing serious risks in the workplace where it belongs. We certainly wouldn't.

Indeed, Hackitt wrote to the Lawn Tennis Association and the All England Club about the closure of Murray Mount on 21 June:

There is nothing in health and safety legislation which prohibits the continued broadcasting of centre court action to the crowds on the hill during the rain.

Health and safety is concerned with the proportionate management of real risks caused by work, not attempting to eliminate every minor risk from every moment of people's lives.

People have been walking up and down wet grassy slopes for years without catastrophic consequences. If the LTA was concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries the message should have made clear the decision was 'on insurance grounds'.

Health and safety excuses are becoming as much a feature of the British sporting calendar as the rain. You will understand that while we can do nothing about the weather, we will not let the excuses pass unchallenged.

The EU doesn't really want your 'pets' for drug testing

A few days ago, the Sunday Express led with yet another scare story about the EU:


The EU now wants to 'test drugs on pets'? It makes it sound as if the EU will be snatching kittens from crying children and hauling them off to the laboratory.

Here's how Ted Jeory explains it:

Thousands of pets in Britain could end up being used in lab tests if European plans to weaken our tough animal welfare laws succeed.

The Brussels directive could trigger a dramatic rise in the number of cats, dogs and horses used in laboratory experiments.

The plan would remove the special protection domestic animals currently have and could even allow pets deemed strays to be used for the first time.

Towards the end of the article Jeory eventually admits:

Under the EU directive, member states can retain their own laws providing they were in place by last November.

So none of this may happen anyway and the Government may stick with the existing legislation. But if the Directive is adopted, does it mean that the EU will get its hands on your pets?

Indeed, the Directive doesn't mention 'pets' at all but refers instead to 'Stray and feral animals of domestic species'. The Directive (paragraph 21) says:

Since the background of stray and feral animals of domestic species is not known, and since capture and placement into establishments increases distress for such animals, they should not, as a general rule, be used in procedures.

Article 11 adds that exemptions may be granted only where:

(a) there is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; and (b) there is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.

Inevitably, the European Commission Representative in the UK has been forced to fire off another letter in response to the Sunday Express' article:

Your front-page on EU plans to use pets in scientific experiments is nonsense. The pets of Britain are safe from scientific experiments. EU rules state that only animals specifically bred for research can be used. Only where the research specifically relates to stray animals (say, into illnesses that could be passed to children after contact with strays) can an exception be made.

There's one other part of the Directive that Jeory neglects to mention:

this Directive represents an important step towards achieving the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. To that end, it seeks to facilitate and promote the advancement of alternative approaches.

And, as the press release states:

The main objectives are to considerably improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures... The directive is based on the need to Replace, Reduce, and Refine animal testing – the Three Rs principle. The Commission believes strongly in the need to find alternative methods to testing on animals. Where this is not possible the number of animals used must be reduced or the testing methods refined so as to cause less harm to the animals.

So the EU would like to reach a position where live animals are not used for testing. Until then, only animals specifically bred for testing can be used. Stray and feral animals of domestic species shouldn't be used, but in circumstances where research relates directly to issues around strays, exemptions may be granted. But as the UK has tougher rules already in place, that exemption might not be adopted by the Government anyway.

To the Sunday Express, all this means: the EU wants to test drugs on your pets.

Two ASA rulings against Express newspapers

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld one complaint against the Daily Express, and three complaints (regarding one ad) against the Sunday Express.

Both cases involve front page splashes about a free giveaway of toys and games where there was insufficient stock to satisfy demand.

For the daily, the adjudication says:

We noted there appeared to have been a lack of communication between the Express, Mattel and ELC resulting in the promotion going ahead when there was insufficient time or stock to satisfy demand. We understood that participants were told about the delay, but nonetheless considered that, because the toy was not available to collect as claimed, the promotion was misleading.

For the Sunday Express:

We considered that the Sunday Express and Argos had not demonstrated that they had made a reasonable estimate of demand for the board game and, moreover, had encouraged readers to purchase the Sunday Express as a precondition to obtaining the board game when the number of items was limited. We concluded that the promotion breached the code.

The ASA has ruled neither promotion should run again in its current form, but since these were one-off giveaways, they probably weren't going to be repeated anyway. And there's no penalty other than a written ruling that few people will ever see.

So while Richard Desmond may have removed his newspapers from the jurisdiction of the Press Complaints Commission, we can be sure the ASA will still be holding them rigorously to account. Ahem.

(Thanks to Amit for the tip)

Star and Express continue running 'ads' for 'The Vanessa Show'...

Another day, another article in the Richard Desmond-owned Daily Star about The Vanessa Show, broadcast on the Richard Desmond-owned Channel Five.

This one explains how a discussion about DIY 'turned the air blue':

The saucy pair [Vanessa and her guest] forgot the cameras were there and started littering their chat with X-rated innuendo.

They giggled like schoolgirls as they cracked naughty jokes about “screwing”, “hammering things in”, and “inserting drills in and out”.

Had such, ahem, 'X-rated innuendo' been on the BBC, the tone of the Star's article might have been very different. Peter Dyke's 'story' makes clear that this 'incident' took place during the filming of the episode that is being broadcast today. So it's yet another advert being passed off as news, with claims about X-rated chat and giving the 'censors' a 'headache' a desperate attempt to drum up interest in the show. And, conveniently, mention what time the show is broadcast.

A shorter article about the guest on Monday's show was published yesterday.

And as Anton Vowl noted in his post about writers at the Star and Express being forced to write this stuff, the Sunday Express' TV editor David Stephenson also did his bit. Under the headline 'Fantastic Vanessa Feltz is a must see' he said:

New to the market last week comes The Vanessa Show (Five, Monday-Friday), the most promising new show in daytime television. Vanessa Feltz is the busiest presenter around with a brace of radio shows on the BBC, a newspaper column for the Daily Express and now a daytime chat/magazine show.

Billed as the “Queen of Morning TV”, there’s little doubt that Vanessa has ample energy and brims with confidence on the sofa. Her break from television has given her a new chutzpah.

However, the best feature of her presentation style is that she doesn’t fall into the common trap of worshipping celebrities like modern-day saints (Lorraine being by far the worst offender, followed by This Morning).

First up on the sofa was former Pussycat Doll Kimberly Wyatt from Sky’s Got To Dance. Vanessa confronted the singer/dancer-turned-reality judge with this friendly gambit: “I would quite like to hate you!” What?

The presenter went on to explain how Kimberly, with her model looks, must make women insanely jealous to the point of “hate”.

The show also features Vanessa’s fiancé Ben, who chimes in at various points, and a life coach who, most surprisingly, speaks a lot of sense if you believe in that sort of stuff. At least his first “patient” in Reading appeared to have discovered how to use a webcam.

So, all in all, and in the words of Len Goodman, “Good job!”

Probably the same words that Richard Desmond uttered when he read that 'review'.

Then, last Friday, the Star was at it again, this time re-telling an entirely uninteresting story told by one of the guests on the show. It appears this is going to become a staple of the Star and Express for some time to come:

Vanessa Feltz’s new TV show has caused a sexy stir and seen ratings soar in its first week. Saucy Danielle Lineker even left the telly host, 48, lost for words by confessing husband Gary had caught her in a compromising position with another fella. The model spilled the beans on yesterday’s The Vanessa Show on Channel 5.

The 'compromising position' wasn't really any such thing. And just in case there was any doubt this was simply an advert for Channel 5, the article ends:

The babe is just one of the guests who have spiced up Vanessa’s new show – on at 11am, Monday to Friday every week – and fans can expect more revelations next week. Guests include Liz McClarnon, 29, on Monday, Hayley Tamaddon, 33, on Tuesday and Myleene Klass, 32, on Wednesday.

But is the Star correct to say ratings have 'soared'? You would probably assume that's not the case given they feel the need to keep running these 'adverts' for the programme. If anyone has the viewing figures, please do post them in the comments below.

Royal Mail hasn't banned religion

Minority Thought has posted on the latest nonsense about Christmas and Christianity being under attack which has appeared in the Sunday Express:


The headline is, as Minority Thought points out, 'absurd' but it is just the latest example of the word 'ban' being thrown around completely incorrectly.

It doesn't take much to work out that Royal Mail has little power to actually 'ban religion'. The story doesn't actually say this, claiming instead that religious images have been 'banned' from this year's Christmas stamps:

Church leaders are furious with Royal Mail bosses who ditched Christian images on Christmas stamps in favour of children’s favourites Wallace and Gromit.

Last night, the Archbishop of Canterbury was being asked to take action, just two days before the stamps go on sale.

But as the very next paragraph of David Paul's article makes clear:

The plasticine stars of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit will appear on seven different stamps but those wanting a religious theme have only one choice, the image of the Madonna and Child that has been on sale for the past three years.

Ah. So religious images haven't been 'banned' or 'ditched' from this year's stamps? No:

A Royal Mail spokeswoman said: “We have distributed tens of millions of the Madonna and Child stamps to go on sale alongside the Wallace and Gromit stamps.”

How the Express turns 'distributing tens of millions' of something into a 'ban' is something the PCC may want to look at.

Even the Daily Mail, which has been angry about secular Christmas stamps in the past, weren't complaining when they reported on the Wallace and Gromit stamps in September:

The animated inventor, whose gadgets never quite work according to plan, and his long-suffering dog, will be delivering their brand of humour from the envelopes of millions of Christmas cards...

But stamps featuring the Madonna and child are also on sale.

And what of the Express' claim that 'church leaders are furious'? Well, as usual, they use the word 'fury' when the shouldn't. And the article only quotes one person who isn't happy - a 'team rector' from a small village in Wiltshire (population: 1,213). So not leaders, plural.

The Express also claims:

Critics claim the switch to Wallace and Gromit...is a cynical bid by Royal Mail bosses to boost profits and ignores the true meaning of Christmas.

It doesn't say who these 'critics' are. But the Express knows - because this fuss about stamps seems to come up every year - that the Royal Mail have alternated between themes for several years:

Royal Mail’s policy for Christmas stamps is to alternate non-secular and secular themes. The 2009 stamps showed the nativity as depicted in stained glass windows from the Pre-Raphaelite era and in 2010 a secular theme is featured.

To provide choice for customers, the popular 1st and 2nd Class Madonna and Child stamps, first issued in 2007, will also be available.

Indeed, in 2008 the main stamps carried a pantomime theme but as the Royal Mail explained at the time:

Customers will be able to purchase stamps depicting two classic, iconic paintings - the Madonna of Humility by Lippo di Dalmasio and Madonna and Child by William Dyce. The Madonna of Humility features on the 1st Class stamp and Madonna and Child on the 2nd Class.

So the Express have produced a totally misleading headline and made claims about a 'ban' which is clearly shown to be false later in the article. They also over-state the amount, and the strength, of the criticism.

But one person leaving a comment on the Express website hasn't understood any of that:

EU could make it up

The Telegraph has made new claims about what the EU is going to 'force' the UK to do in this article which appeared yesterday:


The word 'hijack' was actually used by a UKIP MEP although he doesn't actually say what the headline claims:

Paul Nuttall, a Ukip MEP, accused the EU of wanting to impose its view of history on war sites such as the Menin Gate, which marks the 55,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the First World War fighting of the Ypres Salient but who have no known graves.

"As we come up to Remembrance Sunday it is outrageous to think that the EU might try and hijack the Menin Gate when in fact it commemorates the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died to protect our independence from Europe," he said.

But a letter from the European Commission Spokesperson for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth debunks the Telegraph's story:

You claim that the EU wants to ‘hijack’ Remembrance Sunday with a plan to put euro-branded commemorative plaques marking “European integration” on war cemeteries and memorials in the UK (27 October). This is nonsense and a serious distortion of the facts, which were explained in some detail to your correspondent.

The facts are that the UK government and other Member States asked the European Commission to come forward with an initiative for a ‘European Heritage Label’, which will mark sites which have an important place in European history and European integration.

Under our proposal, which was backed by the European Parliament this week, it will be up to national governments to nominate sites for the award, if they want to. The sites might include places of remembrance. An independent expert panel will assess the nominations it receives from national governments and decide which of them merits the heritage label.

If the panel receives no nominations from the UK, no sites in the UK would display the European Heritage Label.

The EU cannot unilaterally impose the heritage label on anyone.

We believe the scheme will raise international awareness of heritage sites all over Europe and that the cost of the initiative will be far outweighed by the economic benefits it will bring for the sites themselves, for job creation and for local businesses in terms of increased tourism.

To suggest that the EU wants to ‘hijack’ Remembrance Sunday is frankly outrageous. It dishonours the newspaper to write such rubbish and, more importantly, it dishonours those who sacrificed their lives for the freedom we take for granted today.

Dennis Abbott
Captain (Retd), Royal Signals
European Commission Spokesperson for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth

This is the not the only time this week that newspaper stories about the EU have been challenged. Yesterday, Jonathan Scheele, Head of EU Representation in the UK, wrote to the News of the World explaining that one of their claims was very slightly out:

Your article “We scrimp and save …. Eurocrats splurge” published 24 October incorrectly states that the 2011 budget for the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is 158 million pounds. Cedefop’s draft budget for 2011 is in fact ten times lower, ie 15.48 million pounds.

That was noticed by Minority Thought, as was the response to the Sunday Express' silly 'EU is on another planet' headline (also looked at by Atomic Spin).

The paper claimed in one sub-head that £670million was to be wasted 'making explicit films'. Clearly Express owner Richard Desmond has a vested interest in other people getting involved in the explicit film business.

But the story admitted that these weren't really 'explicit films' at all but are actually 'art-house films', although the Express dismisses these as 'revelling in scenes of sex and violence'.

Once again, Dennis Abbott responded, leaving a lengthy comment on the Express' website:

Don't you mean the Express is on another planet?

Kirsty Buchanan, congratulations: you are hereby inducted into the Express 'Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of the Story' hall of journalistic fantasy.

You write that the EU is funnelling taxpayers' cash 'into subsidies for pro-European documentaries and art-house films revelling in senes of sex and violence'.

Here are the facts, for anyone who's interested. By the way, I explained them to Kirsty last Friday:

The EU's aid for the film industry prohibits support for explictly pornographic or racist films or films promoting violence.

Oh and we do not just support 'art-house' films. Recent beneficiaries of funding from the EU include the companies behind award-films like Slumdog Millionaire, The Wind that Shakes The Barley and The Pianist. You may be aware that these films also did quite well at the box office.

Without EU funding at the early stages, these films might never have got off the drawing board.

Thr UK is among the biggest net beneficiaries of EU funding through the MEDIA fund for cinema (ie the UK gets a lot more out of the fund than it puts in).

Why does the EU help to fund the film sector - especially small operators? Because we want to help to create and safeguard jobs in the industry, and to ensure diversity.

If any readers want to find out the facts about EU funding for cinema, click here:

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/overview/index_en.htm

If they want to know more about programmes revelling in sex, they're much better off checking out Television X or Red Hot TV ... and we know you [sic] runs them, don't we?

Best regards

Dennis Abbott
EC spokesperson for education and culture

It's interesting to note that in both responses by Abbott, he makes clear that the journalist who wrote the story was told the EU's side of the story in advance but, in both cases, they seem to have deliberately ignored it.

Sunday Express blurs line between advertising and editorial

In August 2009, the Express was censured by the Advertising Standards Authority for passing off advertising as editorial.

And it was told off four times. In one week.

Yet Roy Greenslade thinks he's spotted the Sunday Express doing a similar thing:

The Sunday Express ran a two-page spread yesterday for HomeSun, the solar electricity company. It offered readers the chance to have a free solar system installed in their house. At the top of both pages, headlined "Solar so good... with HomeSun", there was a clear label very properly stating that it was an "advertising feature".

But readers who turned on a couple of pages would then have found a "news story", 'Give yourself a warm glow' that was a virtual re-run of the advertising content. It was little more than a puff for the offer, with approving quotes from a HomeSun spokeswoman and the company's chief executive.

The ASA, like the PCC, don't have any particularly meaningful powers of punishment, however, which probably explains why it keeps happening.

Sunday Express knowingly lies about NICE

A few weeks after tackling the Daily Mail over a story about cancer drugs, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has asked for a correction from the Sunday Express.

In 'Scandal of life-saving drugs held up by poll', Lucy Johnston wrote:

Cancer patients are being denied life-saving treatment because drug watchdogs are banned from approving new medicines during the election campaign.

The edict from the Cabinet Office to The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has outraged specialists.

Not so replied NICE Chief Executive Sir Andrew Dillon. He said that only one drug appraisal - for treatment of Crohn's disease - had had its publication delayed by two weeks. And:

Our only other publications in April would have been draft guidance, which would not have had an impact on access, by patients, to treatments.

So Johnston and the Sunday Express got it wrong. Nothing new in that. But the most damning element of Dillon's letter is that Johnston knew it was wrong but went ahead with the story anyway:

We confirmed to Lucy, both verbally, and by email (attached) that no NICE guidance on cancer drugs was being delayed by the election...

Despite having received this written confirmation from us, Lucy wrote a highly misleading article, including quotes from several people who were clearly asked to react to information that was not true.

Furthermore, Lucy did not ask us anything about the drug Nexavar, which she used in the article as an example of a drug supposedly delayed. Had she bothered to ask us, we could have confirmed that final guidance on this drug had not been due to be published in April, and was therefore not being delayed by the election.

Dillon concludes:

In light of the fact that you have printed an incorrect and misleading article, I am asking that you print a correction on page four of next week’s paper.

I am also requesting that Lucy Johnston contacts the people quoted in her article to let them know that, in fact, no final NICE guidance on cancer drugs, which would have been published in April, has been delayed as a result of the election campaign.

Will the newspaper admit their error that easily? Given the original hasn't been removed, that seems unlikely...

Richard Desmond newspaper accuses other media outlets of producing 'filth'

Yesterday, the Sunday Express ran a front page headline Families hit by BBC 'filth'.

It wasn't, in fact, a plumbing problem at Broadcasting House, but a feeble attack on online catch-up services. Although the headline focussed on the BCC, ITV and Channel 4 were also mentioned. But, as ever, it's the BBC that was the main target.

David Stephenson's report, which seemed highly influenced by the prudes at Mediawatch, feigned outrage at the accessibility of sex and violence on BBC iPlayer and the like.

The idea that five-year-olds would be watching Wallander was rather unlikely. Nonetheless, the Express was adamant:

The result is that highly impressionable children are becoming hooked on TV programmes which have unsuitable images and dialogue, leading to long-term concerns for their mental health.

The same concerns, incidentally, that some people might have about 'highly impressionable adults' reading the Express.

It goes on:

The Sunday Express watched an episode of the adult crime drama Wallander on the BBC iPlayer by simply confirming, with one click, that we were over 16...

From the ITVplayer, the Sunday Express downloaded an episode of Secret Diary Of A Call Girl, featuring adult sexual content. Again it took one click.

Now, the Express newspapers are owned by Richard Desmond's Northern and Shell company. They also own several pornographic television channels. This includes Television X, whose website needs only two clicks before 'highly impressionable children' could be seeing hardcore porn.

Indeed, starting from Google, that was significantly easier than finding far, far, far less explicit stuff on iPlayer.

Desmond also owns the Daily Star, which shows a topless page 3 girl every day and carries a very large number of adverts for phone sex in every edition.

So is the Sunday Express really in a position to complain about 'filth' elsewhere?

Raising false hopes with cancer coverage

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

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

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

But a clue is in the sub-head:

New theory could be 'greatest discovery since chemotherapy'.

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

Lucy Johnston's article continues:

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

And the researchers focused on ovarian cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

The 'World's Greatest Newspaper' won't win a British Press Award again this year

The nominations for the British Press Awards have been announced.

Unsurprisingly, the Telegraph leads the field (with 19 nominations) after its coverage of MPs' expenses.

The Guardian (17 nominations), The Sunday Times (15), The Times (13), Daily Mail (12) and the Mail on Sunday (11) follow.

There's also a handful of nominations each for the Mirror, Independent, Sun and FT.

In fact, only two national daily newspapers failed to get a single nomination: the Daily Star and the Daily Express. Richard Desmond, who owns both, must be so proud.

The Sunday Express got one nod, for the story about Jacqui Smith putting her husband's porn film on her expenses. But that's as good as it gets.

Because the Express, Star and their Sunday versions didn't get a single nomination in 2009 either.

And it was the same story in 2008.

And, ahem, 2007.

So only one nomination for Richard Desmond's dreadful rags in four years.

And yet the Express continues to call itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' on its masthead every day. Its circulation is collapsing, it serves up a daily diet of hate and lies and the complete lack of any nominations in these awards means it becomes increasingly hard to understand how they are allowed to make this obviously bogus claim.

Elsewhere, it was pleasing to see the Express' Paul Thomas was left off the cartoon shortlist.

But best of all, the complete failure of any of the nasty columnists at the Mail to get a single mention. No Littlejohn. No Moir. No Platell. No Melanie Phillips. No Liz Jones. No Allison Pearson.

Wonderful.

Not quite so wonderful is the somewhat surprising nomination for the Mail's 'Science' Editor Michael Hanlon in the 'Specialist journalist' category. This is the man who once wrote:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

Does one?

Even worse is the inclusion of Kelvin MacKenzie on the Columnist shortlist. MacKenzie is so highly valued by the Sun - despite his lies about Hillsborough - that they don't put his columns on their website.

Here's a flavour of his work. On 11 February he wrote about the Muslim bus driver who had stopped his bus in order to pray. Last time the Sun wrote this story about a different driver it cost them £30,000. But to MacKenzie, the latest incident was evidence that them Muslims were taking over - solely because the driver had not been sacked. He wrote:

So why wasn't he fired on the spot? It seems there is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.

And when he says 'them' we can safely assume he's not talking about bus drivers.

No, he's talking about Muslims who, he seems to be admitting, aren't really meant to be reading the Sun. They're not one of 'us'. Such language if often used by right-wing tabloids and serves only to divide people, to build barriers, to cause tension.

It's hugely depressing to see newspapers talk of 'them and us' in this way. And it's equally depressing that such talk gets rewarded with award nominations.

Myleene, Twitter, racists and terrorists: a round-up of links

Last week, Terrance Gavan - bomb-maker, gun-collector, immigrant-hater, BNP-member - was jailed for eleven years for 'collecting information useful for terrorism and possessing explosives and firearms'.

Both Anton and Uponnothing have done excellent jobs in examing the media coverage of his sentencing.

Anton looks at the difference in the coverage of Muslim terrorists and those from the far-right, whereas Uponnothing shows how uninterested the Mail seems to be when terrorists are white. They even put a non-story about a Muslim getting married higher up their homepage than the Gavan coverage.

Gavan didn't make the front page of any of the national newspapers. Would a Muslim convicted of hoarding 54 explosive devices and 12 firearms been similarly ignored?

Another post by Uponnothing that is well worth reading is about the comments left on the Mail article about the thug who poured bleach over a woman in a cinema after she had asked him to be quiet.

When the mugshot of 16-year-old Jordan Horsley was released, the fact that his skin wasn't white brought out the unrepentant racists:


All these comments had been moderated in advance - and thus deemed suitable by people at the Mail - and remain up ten days on, with even higher green arrow scores.

On a lighter note, last week's very suspicious story about Myleene Klass being warned by police for wielding a knife at intruders looked increasingly dubious. Marina Hyde in the Guardian had - unlike just about every other journalist who wrote about it, including ones at the Guardian and Observer - 'bothered to establish the chain of events' and discovered:

the initial call to police was not placed by Myleene but by a man believed to be her agent or publicist, to whom she was naturally on the phone at the time.

And:

As for the story's appearance in the Sun the very next day, Hertfordshire police state: "We believe the media found out about the incident following a phone call from Ms Klass's publicist to Emma Cox from the Sun."

And, not in the least bit suspiciously:

despite having given copious quotes and assistance on the story all week, both publicist and agent declined to discuss this yesterday.

Hyde then reveals that Klass seems to have a bit of form in, shall we say, exaggerating...

Elsewhere, the Sunday Express had two (alleged) journalists write up a feeble BBC-bashing story. The article by David Jarvis and David Stephenson was so poor and so inaccurate that it was deleted from the Express website before end of play Monday.

They tried to prove that BBC employees were wasting their time, and your money, by being on Twitter. Yes, bashing the BBC and new-fangled-technology in one.

The problem was they are inept and their research was even worse. They didn't understand how Twitter works and misunderstood the difference between 'followers' and 'following'. They claimed, for example, Victoria Derbyshire had two followers when she actually has over 3,600.

It was unbelievably pathetic. More so, because it appears Stephenson, the paper's TV critic, is actually on Twitter.

Full story at No Rock and Roll Fun.

And finally, hat-tip to badjournalism, Paul E Smith and Bitter Wallet for this tastefully placed advert in the Metro.

Damages round-up

A cracking end-of-the-week for the newspapers and their lawyers. First up, yet another libel payout by one of Richard Desmond's rags:

Earl Spencer and his daughter Kitty today accepted substantial damages today over false claims made by the Sunday Express that they acted improperly over his divorce... Today, the court was told the newspaper had offered its sincere apologies for the distress and embarrassment caused and had agreed to pay substantial damages and their legal costs in full.

But Rupert Murdoch has two substantial lots of damages to pay. First, to Derek Simpson of the Unite union:

Union leader Derek Simpson today accepted undisclosed damages from the News of the World after it claimed he took unfair advantage in an election he eventually won. Simpson, the joint general secretary of Unite, brought High Court proceedings over an article published in October.

His solicitor, Athalie Matthews, told Mr Justice Eady in London the article alleged that Simpson was guilty of a breach of election rules and misusing union funds which gave him an unfair advantage in the March election. It stated that he had sent a mailshot to Unite's members six weeks before the election and, as a result of this, was to be fined £100,000 or would have to retire early.

All the allegations were untrue, Matthews said, adding: "The publication of this article caused Mr Simpson considerable distress and embarrassment.

"He was especially concerned that it could cause Unite members to suspect him of cheating in the election and thus to question the validity of his election.

"He was also understandably concerned that falsely suggesting that he might have to retire within six months could undermine his leadership and destabilise the union."

News Group Newspapers, publisher of the News of the Word, had apologised and agreed to pay Simpson damages and legal costs. The newspaper's solicitor, Patrick Callaghan, said it wished to make clear that it was entirely mistaken in publishing the allegations.

He added: "It did so in reliance on a source which it believed to be reliable. As such, the News of the World apologises to Mr Simpson for this article and for the distress and embarrassment it has caused him."

And (thanks to Sun - Tabloid Lies) a reminder that the Sun will be paying £75,000 in libel damages to Mohammed George for calling him a woman-beater, which they also have to tell their readers about now:

Former EastEnders star Mo George has been awarded £75,000 libel damages over a Sun article which a jury ruled wrongly branded him a woman beater. The actor's lawyer Ronald Thwaites, QC, told the High Court the article left Mr George depressed and unwilling to go out. After the case, Mr George, 26, said: "I want to thank all my friends and family who have supported me through all of this." Publishers News Group Newspapers had denied libel, claimed justification and maintained the article was true.

Doesn't being a Health Editor mean you need to know about science?

The Sunday Express has issued an apology (of sorts) and clarification over last week's Jab 'as deadly as the cancer' story.

It was an article of dreadful, groundless scaremongering and staggering journalistic ineptness. And the author was the newspaper's Health Editor.

Here's the apology:

Last Sunday we incorrectly suggested that the cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix could be as deadly as cervical cancer and that the vaccine is ineffective. We now accept that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case and that Cervarix in fact provides protection against the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers. We are happy to set the record straight and apologise for causing undue alarm to all those women and teenage girls considering vaccination against cervical cancer.

So they're not sorry for completely misrepresenting the views of the doctor who was 'quoted' and not sorry for printing blatant lies that were seen by many millions of people - not just Sunday Express readers, but anyone who saw it in a newsagent or supermarket.

Shockingly, the apology has not been posted on the Express website. As the original story appeared on the website, there is no question the PCC should force the paper to publish the retraction there too.

And speaking of where the apology should be published, three sentences on page two is simply not adequate for a front page headline. The PCC should make it a set rule that any apology should appear on the same page, or an earlier one, and never further back in the paper. If that is the front page, then so be it.

This followed Ben Goldacre's column on Saturday, where he outlined the actual views of Dr Diane Harper, who the Sunday Express so completely misrepresented. Here's what she told Goldacre:

I fully support the HPV vaccines. I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this... I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a 'controversial drug'. I did not 'hit out' – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.

And there were other errors:

Harper did not "develop Cervarix" but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil and also Cervarix. "Gardasil is not a 'sister vaccine' as the Express said, it is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix as it is not available in the US." She did not say that Cervarix was being overmarketed. "I did say that Merck was egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US – but Gardasil and Cervarix are not the same vaccines."

So how does the Sunday Express and journalist Lucy Johnston take:

I fully support the HPV vaccines...I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer.

And turn it into:

Jab 'as deadly as the cancer'

Or take the sentiment behind this:

I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer.

And decide she meant this:

Dr Harper, of the University of Missouri-Kansas, said she believed the risks – “small but real” – could be worse than the risk of developing cancer itself.

Dr Harper has also sent a complaint to the PCC. Hopefully the PCC will not meekly decide that as the paper has already published an general apology, that the case is closed.

Goldacre points out that Lucy Johnston has some form on hopeless, evidence-free science stories, and highlights this front page:

The story begins:

The spate of deaths among young people in Britain’s suicide capital could be linked to radio waves from dozens of mobile phone transmitter masts near the victims’ homes.

If it wasn't so serious, you might laugh.

Ben Goldacre wrote two excellent articles on this. In the first he found that Johnston's expert - 'Dr Roger Coghill' - isn't a doctor, and he doesn't sit on a 'government advisory committee', as the paper claimed.

And here is what Coghill believe about AIDS:

The idea that AIDS is caused by a virus is a well-protected fiction. The possibility that immune deficits, both mild and serious, can be acquired through over-exposure to non-ionising electromagnetic fields is, however, real, and proven in the laboratory.

A statement which should send any half decent science journalist running as far away from him as possible. But 'half-decent' and 'journalist' clearly don't apply to Johnston.

Except in the twisted world of Express Newspapers, where she's the Sunday Express' Health Editor.

No, really.

But back to Coghill and that's both AIDS and suicide that he is blaming on electromagnetic fields. Which is handy because, Goldacre reveals:

Readers worried by the front page story on Mr Coghill’s inaccessible research may have visited his website for more information. There they could buy his electromagnetic field protection equipment at competitive prices, and a £149 device called the Acousticom for 'finding out if your home is being exposed to microwaves from e.g. cellphone masts'.

In the second article, Goldacre tried to find out more about Coghill's research on the phone masts and suicides:

Sadly Dr Coghill still does not wish to tell me what figures he collected, what analysis he did on them, what “average” he compared them with, what the results were, and what interpretation he makes from these results. This baffles me.

He claims online that he has offered to let me inspect his data but that I declined. This baffles me too, because he also explains – in a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about me harassing him – that he will not give me his data, as he considers it “sensitive”.

And this man is the Sunday Express' only source for a front page health scare story.

Of course, the Express papers carry on with their pathetic, churned front pages from press releases on health scares and miracle cures. And neither the Sunday Express Editor or Health Editor are disciplined or sacked for their serious transgressions.

(Hat-tips to Anton Vowl, Roy Greenslade and Ben Goldacre)