The People apologises for lying about Sir Roger Moore interview

Today, The People published an apology to Sir Roger Moore:

On 16 September we published an article headed “I’ve had Moore women than James Bond” which claimed that Sir Roger Moore had recently spoken exclusively to The People and made comments to our journalist about his private life.

We now accept that Sir Roger did not give an interview to our reporter and did not make the comments that were reported in the headline.

We apologise for any distress and embarrassment our article has caused to Sir Roger Moore and we have agreed to pay him damages and legal costs.

Madeley, Widdecombe and the paramedics

In his column in last week's Express, Richard Madeley wrote about the case of Thomas Passant:

'Lunch is for wimps' - Gordon Gekko in the seminal movie Wall Street, released in 1987.

Twenty-five years on, Gekko would make short work of the West Midlands Ambulance Service.

Incredibly, paramedics refused to interrupt their lunch break despite an emergency call for an ambulance to attend.

He went on:

So what did a paramedic team in Shropshire decide was a lesser priority than feeding their faces?

You’ll never guess. No, really, you won’t. Indeed when I read about it this week I thought it was some kind of joke, albeit in poor taste.

But the grotesque truth is this.

West Midlands Ambulance Service’s finest continued to munch their lunch after a six-week-old baby boy suffered a heart attack. His family dialled 999 but had to wait 41 minutes for an ambulance to come, because a crew were on their break and couldn’t be interrupted.

The College of Paramedics issued a statement in response:

"It's simply not true that this crew sat 'feeding their faces' knowing that a patient, in this case a baby, was suffering a life-threatening heart condition," said Andy Proctor, Paramedic spokesperson for College of Paramedics members in the West Midlands.

"It's absolutely outrageous to suggest that this or, indeed, any paramedic or ambulance crew would knowingly sit eating a meal whilst a child's life is at threat. We believe that this article has totally misreported the facts in this case."

"What he [Madeley] also didn't mention is that a paramedic was already at the patient's side within minutes, providing life-saving treatment.

Quotes from other people in the statement criticised the paper for:

inaccurate and poorly-researched journalism

And said:

it is extremely disappointing to read such an article which plainly has not reported all the facts clearly.

The College of Paramedics called for an 'unequivocal public apology' and a donation to the Ambulance Services Benevolent Fund.

A follow up statement from them explained what happened next:

A storm broke on Twitter, with Richard Madeley being harangued to the point where, on Monday evening, he acknowledged on Twitter that the story was "widely misreported" and that he was writing a follow-up piece. However, he did not apologise and has not now been seen on Twitter for three days.

Meanwhile – despite a torrent of comments under the online version of the article – the Express issued no correction or apology.

On the afternoon of Tuesday (January 15th), the College of Paramedics, which represents the professional interests of paramedics, issued its press release setting out the facts of the story and putting the paramedics' side. This release almost immediately 'went viral', receiving 12,000+ unique views in a matter of hours and becoming widely quoted on Twitter and even more quoted and 'Like'd by many thousands of Facebook users.

On Wednesday, the Express responded by not only closing the comments section under the online Richard and Judy page but removing all comments completely. Yet still the original story stood. And the storm on Facebook continued, unabated.

Then at lunchtime on Wednesday, the family of baby Thomas joined the Facebook debate in defence of paramedics. Matthew Passant, Thomas' father, posted: "I'm the childs father who the article was about and let me tell you me and my partner have nothing but gratitude to the paramedics who attended to my son Thomas and the paramedics know this as we have spoken to them and their bosses personally." He also wrote "your paramedics, along with the doctors and nurses and everyone else on the way is the reason why our son is still alive and recovering every day."

And Thomas' aunt, Kate Passant, posted: "We as a family were shocked to read this article and just want to say thankyou to the paramedics who attended. The paramedics that attended him did an amazing job and helped save his life."

The response from the Express? Repentance? A correction? An apology?

Not a bit of it. Instead, the Express removed the Richard and Judy piece altogether on Thursday (today), as if it had never existed.

But the day before removing Madeley's article, they published a comment piece by Ann Widdecombe which repeated the charges (and which remains live on their website):

A baby of eight weeks is facing possible disability for life as a result of an ambulance crew finishing its break before going on a 999 call...

when it comes to putting sandwiches before a dying baby and then defending such action as reasonable, Britain has sunk to a new depth.

The College noted it was 'strangely similar' to the Madeley piece and added:

This ignored the truth that, in fact, baby Thomas was receiving paramedic treatment within minutes of the 999 call being made, and the fact that no ambulance crew refused to interrupt its break: that simply did not happen. 

Yesterday, Madeley returned to the subject and back-tracked on what he wrote last week:

It seemed like an open and shut case. It took 41 minutes for an ambulance to arrive at the West Midlands home where a baby had suffered a heart attack. Why? Because the crew were on an “undisturbed” meal break and couldn’t be called out until they’d finished. The rules are rigorous. Undisturbed means undisturbed. This is the policy set by the ambulance service.

The original story provoked a flurry of negative headlines and comment. I wrote about it here last week, expressing incredulity that such a state of affairs was possible and criticising the crew involved.

Seven days on, I am 100 per cent certain that I got this part of the story wrong. No mealy-mouthed apology, this. Yes, the crew had requested a break but they had no knowledge of the 999 call until they clocked back on. In the circumstances my criticism was unjust.

He goes on to repeat some of the stories he has heard over the last week from paramedics. But he still doesn't mention a paramedic was on the scene within minutes of the call.

And 'no mealy-mouthed apology, this'? He admits his criticism was 'unjust' and some of what he said was 'wrong' but he hasn't actually said 'sorry' at all.

The Mail and Bowie

The Mail, 19 October 2012:

It is an anonymity that David Bowie has increasingly come to love.

While it is six years since his last public performance, the once prolific star has apparently not written a song since 2003.

And:

Little wonder his closest associates now openly say Bowie has retired for good from a music world that still fetes him as one of its greatest and most individual talents.

And:

Bowie’s biographer Paul Trynka told me: ‘Although my heart tells me David will be back, my head tells me he won’t, and I don’t think we will see him tour again. None of the musicians David worked with have heard from him. He feels he’s made his mark and he’s content with that.’

Others in the know agree. Recently, his long-time tour promoter John Giddings admitted he, too, believes Bowie will not make a return.

Instead, Bowie — whose last album, Reality, came out nine years ago — seems to be content to see out his years in self-imposed obscurity.

And:

Bowie, it seems, is happy to spend his Golden Years far from the public gaze he once craved.

The Mail, 9 January 2013:

He stunned the world by announcing the release of his first new music in 10 years - but David Bowie has in fact spent the past two years recording in secret, it has been revealed.

The reclusive star chose his 66th birthday on Tuesday to announce his new album,The Next Day, and the release of a single, Where Are We Now?, which is already at the top of the UK iTunes chart - beating Taylor Swift - and will chart this weekend.

And on Tuesday, his longtime producer Tony Visconti revealed he had been working in secret on the 'contemplative' disc with the 'happy and healthy' superstar, saying: 'I've been listening to this on headphones, walking through the streets of New York, for the past two years.'

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

A correction in today's Mail says:

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

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

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

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

'No truth whatsoever'

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

teaming with Paul Weller and Bruce Foxton on new single.

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

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

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

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

'No truth whatsoever'.

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

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

(Hat-tip to oboogie at MailWatch Forum)

'Yesterday'

A quick mention for something that has already been covered on The Media Blog.

The front page of the Express on 12 January looked like this:

Under the image, the caption reads:

A snowplough battles through the blizzards battering the M6 in Cumbria yesterday.

Yesterday? That's odd, given that the Express used the very same photo on 7 December 2012.

Given the paper's penchant for over-the-top, worst-case-scenario weather headlines, this may not have been an accident.

But if it was, it follows other recent photo errors such as the Czech soldiers it said were British, and the Dutch Olympians it said were British.

(Hat-tip to DailyExpressLOL)

MailOnline Showbiz Awards deserve award for hypocrisy

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

The idea is explained perfectly in the intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mail v Big Fat Quiz of the Year

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

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

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

The Mail said it made:

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

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

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

Ofcom told the Independent that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also argued:

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

But the paper provided no evidence for such a connection.

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

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

too coarse to be repeated in a family newspaper.

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

This morning, the lead story on MailOnline was this:

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

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

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

The Independent revealed a few hours later:

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

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

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

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

Another 'sour' post about the weather predictions in the Express

Express hack Nathan Rao appears not to have enjoyed this post about his not-very-reliable articles about the weather.

Despite claiming it made him 'chuckle' he took to his personal blog to label it 'sour', 'yawn-inducing' and 'pointless drivel'.

Well, if anyone knows pointless drivel when he sees it...

The 'yawn-inducing' insult is curious, too, given he's been following Tabloid Watch on Twitter since 6 November 2011.

Apart from those insults, Rao had nothing to say about the post. He didn't challenge or debunk it in any way - he just indulged in petty name-calling.

Twenty-eight people decided to post comments in response to Rao's outburst - every one is critical of him and challenging him to point out where this blog was wrong. He hasn't responded on his blog, but tweeted:

Chuckling at how many people have so much to say that they are unwilling to put their names to. Carry on chaps.

So let's look at Nathan's articles about the possibility of a White Christmas in 2012. 

On 21 November, the Express said:

Nathan explained:

Britain is on course for a White Christmas with snow likely as far south as London, say forecasters.

And:

Much of Britain can expect its snowiest winter for 100 years, according to James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather.

On 7 December, Nathan went further - a White Christmas was not just 'odds-on' but a 'dead cert'.

Less than a week later, the prediction changed to a 'wet Christmas'.

By 22 December, the Express had decided Christmas Day 'won't be a white-out' and on the big day, the paper reported:

Hopes of a white Christmas have been washed out

And the Met Office's verdict on Boxing Day about a White Christmas?

Some 'dead cert'.

And yet another blemish on the record of - ahem - 'unmatched' and 'accurate weather updates' from Rao and the Express.

New year, same old churnalism

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

And the entirely unbiased source of this extraordinary revelation?

Internet dating website match.com.

As Michael Marshall notes at the excellent Bad PR blog:

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

Littlejohn and 'callous indifference'

In March 2011, this blog noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Littlejohn says:

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

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

'Callous indifference' indeed.

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

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

For example, Littlejohn says:

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

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

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

Littlejohn also refers to a:

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

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

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

Rawlins adds:

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

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

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

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

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

He goes on:

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

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

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

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

He adds:

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

"Our brave troops"

Daily Express, 27 December 2012:

Major Laurence Roche, British Army officer serving in Afghanistan with The Black Rats:

(See also: the Express uses a photo of the Dutch in an article about British Olympic success)

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.”

MailOnline's 'photoshop fail'

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

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

(Hat-tip to Squeaker)

The eagle has crash landed

The day after the 'eagle snatches kid' video was revealed as a hoax - the Telegraph published confirmation of this at 8:12pm on Wednesday - several of the tabloids ran the story in their print editions.

The Express headline read 'Terror in the skies as eagle snatches tot':

Although the article admitted a 'fierce online debate was raging' about whether it was a hoax, the paper calls it a 'terrifying incident' in the third sentence.

The Sun's headline was 'Child's prey':

Like the Express, it reports on the fact that 'some' had 'questioned whether the incident...was real or a CGI fake.' But at the top of the story, the Sun says:

Dad's horror as golden eagle swoops on his toddler son in park and tries to carry him away

The Star went with 'The eagle has landed a tot!':

It does include the truth that 'the clip turned out to be a...computer-generated fake' but this appears to be a late addition, as the rest of the story is written as if it is genuine - including, on the right of the page:

'What do you think? Check out the video at www.dailystar.co.uk'

(Pictures from Jonathan Haynes, posted on Twitter)

'Incredible footage'

The top story on the MailOnline homepage this morning:

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

ASA upholds complaint against 'irresponsible' Health Lottery ad

The Advertising Standards Agency has upheld a complaint against an advert for Richard Desmond's Health Lottery that appeared in Richard Desmond's Express.

The ad carried the slogan "Mortgage? What mortgage?" and was criticised by the Gambling Reform & Society Perception Group (GRASP) who:

challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because they believed the ad implied that participating in a lottery was a solution to financial concerns or a way to achieve financial security.

The Health Lottery Ltd claimed that the ad:

in no way depicted participation in a lottery as a solution to financial concerns.

Unsurprisingly:

The Daily Express...said they believed the ad was suitable for publication and re-iterated the points made by The Health Lottery.

However, the ASA ruled:

We considered that because the ad suggested that someone who had won the lottery could pay off their debts, the implication was that participation in the lottery was a way of solving financial concerns or achieving financial security. We noted that the CAP Code stated "Marketing communications must not suggest that participating in a lottery can be a solution to financial concerns ... or a way to achieve financial security. Advertisers may, however, refer to other benefits of winning a prize". We considered that other benefits of a winning a prize included purchasing new goods or experiences, rather than paying off existing debts.

For these reasons, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible because it implied that participating in a lottery was a solution to financial concerns or a way to achieve financial security.

 

MailOnline calls Megan Fox a 'strumpet'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Canny strumpet'.

Ben Fenton tweeted:

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

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

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

canny actress

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

The Express and its 'unmatched, accurate weather updates'

In today's Express, the paper pats itself on the back for its weather coverage. The paper says it has:

a firm reputation for leading the way when it comes to the weather.

That:

we are unmatched on our faithful and accurate weather updates.

And that they are:

oracles of the British weather.

This article was written by Nathan Rao. Many of the Express' weather articles, which often predict apocalyptic spells of cold or heat (usually, one appears days after the other), are also written by Nathan Rao.

For example, on 5 September he wrote about a:

tropical burst of summer could last late into October

It didn't last until late October - it didn't even last five days, as on 10 September Rao was reporting 80mph gales that would 'end [the] heatwave.'

On 7 July, the paper (not Rao this time) claimed: Sorry, there's no might about it...IT WILL RAIN 'TIL SEPTEMBER. Just two weeks later, Rao claimed that Britain would see 'temperatures soaring to 95F next week.'

On 15 June, Rao's story claiming that forecasters did 'not anticipate any significant hot spell until well into September' was splashed on the front page. Ten days later, Rao's story claiming that a 'scorching blast of summer will at last roar in from the Continent this week – sending temperatures to 93F (34C)' was splashed on the front page.

On 22 May, the Express said it would be the 'hottest summer for almost a decade'. On 9 June, this changed to 'worst storms for a decade' and a 'year without summer'.

On 19 April, Rao reported claims that it would be the 'coldest May for 100 years'. In fact, the Met Office revealed at the end of May:

temperature, rainfall and even sunshine are very close to normal....

And that there was:

a run of dry and fine weather, with some remarkably high temperatures. This included a new maximum May temperature for Scotland...

In all, it has been the longest warm spell in May since 1992.

A year ago, on 17 December 2011, the Express' front page headline screamed: 'It's a white Christmas!'. But just four days later, bookies were 'slashing the odds on this Christmas being the warmest on record' and two days after that, the paper admitted: 'It won't be a white Christmas anywhere in the UK'.

In early October 2011, Rao reported that temperatures were to hit -20C 'within weeks'. A month later, he reported a 'big Siberian freeze' will arrive 'with a vengeance...within the next fortnight'. Twelve days later, Rao was reporting that Britain was: 'on track for the warmest November since records began 353 years ago.'

There are many more examples like these. After all, Scott Bryan revealed on 23 August 2012 that since September 2011, the Express had weather stories on the front page 111 times - 52 of them as the main story.

So while the Express may indeed 'lead the way' in the amount of column-inches it devotes to the weather, to claim it is of 'unmatched accuracy' or that they are 'oracles of the British weather' is simply laughable.

* Nathan Rao has his own blog. It reveals he's been a journalist for nine years and includes a section called 'Some of my front pages'. It includes just six examples, all from the Express, one of which is the disgraceful, completely untrue 'Muslim Plot to Kill Pope' article which labelled six innocent men as Islamic terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda.

'I didn’t find the card'

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

The card says:

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

The Mail reported on the outrage that followed:

The article says:

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

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

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

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

Today, Johnson tweeted what happened:

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

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

Hi Maureen,

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

Thanks so much,

Niamh

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

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

mj

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

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