Star's ad campaign for Big Brother begins

The front of today's Daily Star claims there is a 'Fury over Big Bro live sex show':

The article, by Peter Dyke, begins:

Big Brother bosses will spark a major controversy by screening a live sex show in the house.

A 'live sex show'? On Channel 5? Rather than on one of Richard Desmond's 'other' channels?

It sounds unlikely. And as the article goes on, it becomes clear this is hype:

Producers unveiled the luxury Las Vegas-style BB13 house yesterday and it contains the ultimate kinky bedroom.

They have cordoned off two double beds and surrounded them with mirrors and lighting.

It is a clear hint they want the randy wannabes to couple up and put on a rompathon.

So there is no 'live sex show'. And even if there was a 'live sex show' when Big Brother starts next month, broadcasting rules would limit what Channel 5 could show anyway.

Is there any 'fury', as claimed in the front page headline? No. The article does not name, or quote, any furious person or organisation.

So no live sex show and no fury. It is another of those headlines that editor Dawn Neesom would say was 'eye-catching' rather than true.

This is simply about one of Richard Desmond's papers plugging a show on one of his TV channels. Dyke remembers to give the date and time of the broadcast of the first episode of the new series.

It's not the first time the Star has misused 'live sex show'. On the front page on 3 December 2008, it claimed Britney Spears had performed a 'live sex show' on TV when in fact she had simply done a song-and-dance routine on Good Morning America.

And trying to sell Big Brother (and copies of the paper) on it's sex content isn't exactly a new tactic for the Star either. Housemates will 'strut their naked stuff' or the programme will be 'full of naked romps' or it will be the 'sexiest Big Bro ever'. So for today's paper to claim this is a 'shock plan' is nonsense. It's the same tired old 'plan' that the Star claims is afoot every year.

Helpfully, MailOnline's JJ Anisiobi has joined the ad campaign, copying-and-pasting the Star's article into a 'story' which claims the series is already 'courting controversy'.

The Express, the EU and plastic bags - part 3

On 20 May 2011, the Express claimed:

The EU hadn't actually said 'ban shopping bags' or even 'ban' plastic bags.

In fact, the EU had simply launched a public consultation on what action, if any, should be taken on plastic bags.

Undeterred, the Express said this on 19 January 2012:

The EU hadn't actually said it wanted 'all plastic bags' to be made 'illegal'.

In fact, it had been reported that the results of the public consultation were that 70% of the 15,500 responses favoured a ban. But there was no evidence in the story that the EU was to adopt this stance.

Undeterred, today's Express said:

'Now EU bans plastic bags'. 'Now'! So 'now' it is actually happening?

Well, the subhead seems to contradict the main headline as it says: 'Shoppers will be forced to pay new Brussels tax'.

So there will be a 'new tax' for something that's going to be banned?

The actual article, by Martyn Brown, does not clear up this confusion:

Brussels commissars want to outlaw shops from stocking them or impose a wallet-busting tax on shoppers to dramatically reduce their use.

The use of 'commissars' is not, of course, accidental.

So there might be a 'ban' or shoppers may have to pay for them (something some shops do already). Either way, the Express knows the charge will be 'wallet-busting'. It just doesn't say what the charge will be.

The paper says:

One of the key proposals will be a recommendation for mandatory charging for plastic shopping bags.

'Mandatory charges'? Won't one of the 'key proposals' be a 'ban'?

The paper says that the Commission's report will be published next month. Two sentences later, it says:

The proposals were met with fury last night by retailers and politicians and added to the growing support for our crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Fury always erupts 'last night' for the Express. But how can 'fury' erupt at a set of proposals that haven't been published when it's not clear - especially from the Express' article - what those the proposals are.

Indeed, a week before the Express' article, the BBC website published an article weighing up different options for plastic bags. It said:

The European Commission is to publish proposals in the spring designed to reduce the number of plastic bags used in Europe each year.

Moreover, Speigel reported on 21 March that an internal Commission report has ruled out a complete ban:

At least one of those options -- the complete ban -- has already been taken off the table. According to the Commission study, a ban would have positive environmental impacts, but it would also "raise difficult legal questions." The report calls a complete ban: "a blunt instrument that gives little flexibility to producers, retailers, or consumers." The report also says that a ban would conflict with international trade law and EU internal market rules.

So we wait to see what the Commission actually says when its report is published. Maybe it will propose banning plastic bags, although the Spiegal report suggests that is unlikely. But at this stage it simply isn't clear.

Importantly, nothing in the Express' article justifies the claim in that front page headline.

(Hat-tip to Tim Fenton, for noting the constant eruptions of fury at the Express)

Mail's latest BBC 'uproar'

MailOnline reports:

As the article points out, Dickens wrote two endings for Great Expectations and this adaptation:

chooses a ‘compromise’ ending between the two that Dickens originally wrote.

So who are the 'critics' who are in 'uproar' about this 'changed' ending?

Well, only one person is actually quoted in the entire story. Here's what he says in the Telegraph's article (the 'inspiration' for the Mail's piece):

Robert Douglas-Fairhurst, an Oxford don and author of the book Becoming Dickens, said it was impossible to run out of ways to interpret the writer.

He said Miss Havisham as a "cougar rather than a crone" is "absolutely right" and added that Dickens always wrote his endings so they could be interpreted in different ways.

"I think Dickens is strong enough to withstand anything we do to him," said Dr Douglas-Fairhurst. "He has a chameleon-like ability to adapt to changing circumstances."

He added that it was fine to mess with both the time structure and the endings of Dickens' novels. "Dickens is inexhaustible," he said.

Not really an 'uproar' is it?

(Hat-tip to JemStone)

Mail exaggerates 'church fury' over McDonald's

Here's a classic Mail headline:

Christmas. Muslim. Church fury.

The article begins:

Church leaders have hit out at a branch of McDonald's which is to open on Christmas Day.

Which 'church leaders' are in a 'church fury' according to the article? 

Parish Rvd Wayne Stillwell said the decision to open the branch showed 'the continuing decline of Christendom in this country' and his reaction was 'one of great sadness'.

So he's 'sad' rather than in a 'fury'. Who else?

Well, the only other 'church' leader quoted in the story is the Dean of Derby, who says:

"Families and friends should come together at Christmas, and if they want to do that in McDonald’s then who is the Church to object?"

So one 'church leader' is a bit sad about McDonald's opening on Christmas Day, a rather more senior church leader says he has no objection. The Mail spins that as 'church fury' by 'church leaders'.

At the end of the article, a McDonald's spokesman reveals:

"We expect there to be about 60 stores in the UK that remain open this year."

That begs the question: why has the Mail decided to highlight this one store where a 'Muslim manager' has been 'drafted in'?

Pound still accepted on Eurostar

The front page of today's Daily Express says the 'pound is banned':

The sub-heading clarifies this slightly, pointing out that this is not a general ban but only 'barmy Eurostar bosses' who have, apparently, 'banned' sterling as it is 'not good enough'.

The Express 'exclusive' by Alison Little says:

Outrage erupted yesterday after Eurostar stopped passengers from using British cash to buy snacks on board its trains.

The crazy ban was part of a controversial plan to ditch the pound on the company’s cross-Channel services and force passengers to pay in euros instead.

There then follows predictable 'fury' quotes from usual suspects Gerard Batten and Philip Davies.

Did this outrage really 'erupt yesterday'? According to the story, the Express was contacted by a reader who discovered last Sunday that Eurostar were doing a seven-day trial during which they were not accepting cash payments in sterling in their buffet bar (debit card payments were still accepted). One other passenger left a critical message on the Eurostar's Facebook page on 29 August.

As ever, you need to skip to the end of the article for the full story. Here's the Eurostar spokesman:

“Like all businesses we continually monitor the range of products and services we offer to our customers and from time to time we trial new initiatives in order to better understand their views.

“Over recent years we have seen a decline in the number of cash-based sterling transactions as more customers choose to pay using debit cards.

“This prompted us to run a brief trial on board to gauge customers’ views about the possible withdrawal of this payment method at our buffets.

“Having listened carefully to the feedback from our customers it is clear that for many this is their preferred payment method and as a result we have decided to continue accepting cash-based sterling payments on board all our trains.”

So a week-long trial, during which people could still pay for snacks with their debit card, comes to an end and Eurostar decides to continue accepting 'cash-based sterling payments' anyway.

Or as the Express puts it: 'Sterling is not good enough say barmy Eurostar bosses.'

Mail's Call of Duty 'fury'

The Mail's sensationalist reporting about video games continues with an article about the latest instalment of Call of Duty:


It seems that headline has been changed, and toned down, at least once - the URL reveals the Mail originally said the game 'recreates 7/7 Tube bomb attacks' rather than 'features 7/7 Tube bomb-style attacks'.

The article explains:

In one particularly vivid shot, an armed soldier on a truck cuts in front of a Tube carriage, derailing and causing it to explode.

Despite being 'ultra-violent' and causing such 'fury', the Mail has helpfully embedded the game's trailer at the end of their article. It does indeed show a truck ramming into a Tube train and causing it to derail.

But there's no explosion of that Tube carriage in the trailer. There's no bomb attack. There's no suicide bomb attack. There's no recreation of 7/7. There's no 7/7 bomb-style attack.

Indeed, the quote that ends the article, from Activision, the makers of the game, makes clear:

'The scenes in the game are entirely fictional and are not intended to recreate any historical events.'

So what of the 'fury'? The Mail claims:

Supporters of those affected by the 7/7 suicide attacks in July 2005, which killed 52 people, called for Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 to be banned.

It's not clear who these 'supporters' are. The article only manages to produce one outrage quote and that comes from Mail favourites Mediawatch-UK. And although they say, rather predictably, that the game is in 'incredibly poor taste' they don't actually say it should be banned. Nor does anyone else in the article.

(More on the Mail's article from Minority Thought and CVG. See also a CVG post on the Mail's misleading article 'Playing football games on computers 'makes you more aggressive'' from a few weeks ago.)

'Lack of care' (cont.)

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

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

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

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

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

Right?

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

And here's today's Daily Star:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

Will the PCC act over Daily Star Sunday's 'needless abbreviation'?

Primly Stable has looked at a story in yesterday's Daily Star Sunday which carried the headline 'Behind bras: Tranny strip-search fury'.

As Primly Stable points out, there's no evidence produced that anyone is actually 'furious' and in any case these are draft proposals that have yet to be approved.

But what of the language used by the paper?

In January 2010, the PCC made what it called a 'landmark ruling on the use of terminology in this area' by saying:

Taking into account the full context of the piece, the Commission considered that the use of the word ‘tranny' - which was a needless abbreviation, held by many to be offensive - was pejorative. The complaint was upheld on this point.

So how have the Star felt able to run this headline in the print edition? The online headline is different but not much better: 'Prisons: Female guards may be forced to search male trannies'. And it's not the case that the word has been abbreviated to fit the headline space as Rick Lyons' article also refers to 'tranny prisoners'.

Trans Media Watch have a list of terms they consider derogatory and say the media should avoid. The list includes three terms the Star uses: 'tranny', 'sex-change' and 'any 'comedy' reference to genitalia'. Press For Change also say the terms are 'inappropriate'.

So if the PCC's ruling that 'tranny' is 'perjorative' and 'needless' is really a 'landmark' decision, they should have no problem holding the Daily Star Sunday to account for using it.

Mock Star Game

Another day, another tabloid reporting on some fictional 'fury'.

This time it was the Daily Star and a claim that a video game based on Raoul Moat was being planned, called 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury'.


Having seen the mocked-up cover somewhere, the Star seems to have believed it was actually going to be made.

The Star even appears to have a quote from the sister of Moat's ex-girlfriend, who says the game is 'beyond belief'.

Of course it is. So how did 'journalist' Jerry Lawton and the people at the Star even begin to think this was real?

By this afternoon, the Star had hastily removed the story but the folk at MCV had taken this screenshot of it.

Tim Ingham from CVG wonders if the removal of the article was because they realised (finally) it was nonsense, or whether Grand Theft Auto publisher Rockstar Games had had a word.

Fury as part of path is made a bit safer

It's political correctness gone mad:


This Mail headline and article is similar to yesterday's swimming pool story. A few mildly critical comments from a few users of a facility is turned into general 'fury' (such an overused word) and the changes being made are on a much smaller scale than is implied.

Jaya Narain's article begins:

Located in the middle of a beautiful national park, Mount Snowdon is one of the most awesome natural wonders of Great Britain.

The wild slopes, steep ridges and treacherous screes of the second highest mountain in the UK attract experienced mountaineers from across the world who want to pit their climbing skills against its rugged routes.

But now the 3,560ft mountain just got a whole lot tamer after a tarmac pathway was laid on one of the ancient routes.

'A tarmac pathway'. But in the next sentence:

The work to level and partly tarmac a mile-and-a-half of the Miners' Track has been carried out to encourage more people onto the mountain.

Ah, now it's only 'partly tarmac'.

Perhaps we better skip to the end of the article and find out what the official spokesman has to say about what's really happened:

Emyr Williams, director of land management at the SNPA, said: 'The path stretches for two and a half kilometres and the only part which has been tarmacked is three separate stretches totalling only 100 metres.

So it's not exactly a 'tarmac path up Snowdon' then.

And are these people really in a 'fury' about three bits of tarmac totalling 100m out of two-and-a-half kilometers (around 4% of the path)? Especially when, Williams adds, the tarmac:

has then been topped with crushed stone to make it look like the rest of the path which has been levelled because it had become badly eroded.'

He said: 'There are five paths up Snowdon and this is one that goes to about halfway up the mountain. We do not carry out works like this lightly and believe it was the correct decision to allow those with physical disabilities a chance to enjoy the mountain.'

And it's not just people with physical disabilities, or parents with pushchairs, who will benefit from the changes to the path:

mountain rescuers say the newly-surfaced Miners' Track...will make their job much easier.

It's political correctness gone mad...

(Hat-tip to BarnetAkela)

Mail attacks BBC for 'voyeuristic' Wimbledon coverage

Last week, this blog pointed out that tabloid coverage of Wimbledon had been dominated by pictures taken up the skirts of the female competitors.

As if to prove the point, the Mail followed it with not one, but two more of these pervy, pointless articles:



(Not to be outdone, The Sun produced a slide show of the 'ten best tennis bottoms'.)

But today we find the hypocrites at the Mail attacking the BBC for, believe it or not, 'voyeurism' in their coverage of Wimbledon.

Words fail.

The Paul Revoir article is based on a few anonymous comments (left on an unnamed messageboard) but the Mail article is currently second story on their website so they're happy to make the point. Never mind that the article makes clear the BBC haven't received any actual complaints - so much for the claim the camerawork has 'sparked fury'.

The Mail happily prints little else but upskirt pictures of female tennis players in their Wimbledon coverage (they published another yesterday, of Tsvetana Pironkova). But when the BBC shows a couple of spectators kissing - in a public place, among hundreds of people, at an event that is televised - that is described as 'voyeuristic camerawork'.

Oh, and the Mail decides to helpfully post a picture of one of the couples in question - for the benefit of the millions of people who visit their website. So it's voyeurism for the BBC to show them, but fine for the Mail.

UPDATE: The Mail updated their article at 11:27am, adding:

Of the 150 viewers who expressed their displeasure on the BBC's message boards about various matches...

This is an outright lie. The discussion thread 'Voyeurism at Wimbledon' on the BBC's Points of View pages had a total of 150 comments at the time of their update. Several of the people complaining about the coverage had posted multiple comments - for example, in the first 60 comments posted, only six different people are complaining about the 'voyeurism' and they posted 22 messages between them. Moreover, there are a large number of comments from people who didn't have a problem with the shots of the crowd.

Therefore, to claim '150 viewers...expressed their displeasure' is totally wrong and having trawled the thread for the critical comments, they are very well aware of that.

The Express and the McCanns (cont.)

Thursday's Express leads with - surprise, surprise - Madeleine McCann:

Yes, it's that Express favourite 'fury' again.

The McCanns are in Portugal trying to stop a police chief having an injunction against his book on the case overturned. Their 'fury' is explained by the Express:

Gerry McCann angrily dismissed Portuguese detectives’ claims that his daughter Madeleine is dead as he arrived at court today.

Senior officers involved in the case told a hearing in Lisbon yesterday of their belief that Maddy died in her family’s holiday flat and that her parents faked her abduction.

Hmm. But wasn't that allegation also repeated on the front of a certain newspaper yesterday?


Ah yes. That's the one.

Of course the sub-head does clarify it, slightly, but if the Express really wanted to make that clear, they could have put the whole headline in quote marks and not just one word.

And, the article by Nick Fagge doesn't really begin in a way that makes the claim sound so 'amazing':

Madeleine McCann died in her family’s holiday apartment as the result of a tragic accident and her parents concealed her body, a police chief told a court in Portugal yesterday. Kate and Gerry McCann neglected their children and lied to detectives investigating Madeleine’s disappearance, a senior government lawyer also claimed.

So there is the Express repeating a claim one day, then reporting on the McCanns' 'fury' about that claim the next. It's exactly what they did in 2007 when Madeleine went missing, and means they keep the story running, while pretending such are claims nothing to do with them.

And the Express has been good at changing its mind on this case from one day to the next. Take this front page from 9 October 2007:

And the very next day:

But given the front page apologies on all of Richard Desmond's newspapers (Express, Star and their Sunday editions), plus the substantial pay-outs to the McCanns, Robert Murat and the Tapas Seven you would think they might stop running such stupid, hysterical front pages on this story and be a bit more careful.

The Express has anger and truth issues

Here's yet another stunning front page from a Richard Desmond paper.

Free stuff, Strictly Come Dancing and a news story with no evident news value.

Christmas TV Chaos: Fury as the freezing weather knocks out favourite channels is billed as an 'exclusive' and reveals:

Millions of digital viewers are having to retune their televisions, some of them daily, as the Arctic weather causes channels to break up or disappear. Angry viewers have deluged the BBC and Freeview with complaints as they suffer interference caused by high pressure accompanying the cold snap and snow.

Even if that were true, it's a pathetic thing to stick on the front page. But is it true?

The story continues:

As the icy conditions challenged digital providers, it emerged some homes 90 miles from Wales have been receiving Welsh language shows.

The second bit of that is true. It was reported a few days ago that there had been a problem of overlapping signals - but this was to do with the switchover process in general and was not related to the weather at all.

And, as usual, deep in the story, there's something which explains as much:

Digital UK, which is charged with rolling out the switchover, denied there was a problem: “We are not aware of any unusual issues regarding bad weather affecting digital signals.” However, the company has acknowledged a problem with “overlapping signals” following the switchover in the North-west and South-west after it received 6,000 complaints.

So a story about problems of overlapping signals which was reported by the BBC and Mail on Thursday and Friday last week, is turned into a front page Sunday Express article and padded out with a bit of irrelevant weather news to add a topical angle, just so we don't think the paper has cribbed it from other sources and reheated it several days later...

But quite apart from the fact the 'story' is crap, there is something so wearying about the language the Express uses, particularly 'fury' and 'chaos' which both appear on the front page. This is a story about some people not having all the television channels they want - 'annoyed' about an 'inconvenience' might be more appropriate than 'fury' about 'chaos'.

(A similar ridiculous over-reaction was reported in the Independent over the CBS adverts starring Frosty the Snowman, over-dubbed with dialogue from How I Met Your Mother. A Fox News commentator, John Tantillo, said after seeing the ads that he had 'never been as appalled, outraged and saddened.' Yes, apparently, 9/11 'appalled, outraged and saddened' him less than an animated snowman saying rude things.)

But what else has the Express newspapers said people are in a 'fury' about recently?

Union fury at cabin crew militants, Fury over Guy Ritchie's 'noisy' A-list pub, Investor fury over punch bonuses, Ministers faced fury last night after it was revealed Labour’s welfare benefits bonanza costs the average working household almost £1,000 a year, Hughes vents Clattenburg fury and Tiger Woods' wife's fury over sex in marital bed.

Goldman Sachs has scrapped cash bonuses for its top 30 executives this year amid public fury on both sides of the Atlantic..., Jack Straw sparked fury yesterday..., Northern Rock shareholders reacted with fury..., Licence fee payers reacted with fury last night after it was revealed this year’s Christmas television schedule will feature almost 600 hours of repeats...

Fury over 'secret' auction of Queen Mother's letters, Hell hath no fury like a woman transgressed, and Mitchells and Butlers shareholder 'takeover' fury.

And that's just since the start of December. That's a lot of 'fury' dreamed up by the Express.

In fact:

And what about 'chaos'? With the snow of the last few days there has been plenty. Apparently.

Snow causes Christmas TV chaos, Eurostar cancels service amid chaos, Martin O'Neill criticises Aston Villa fixture chaos, Chaos in snow and more on the way, Warning over travel chaos following heavy snowfall, Commuters were facing chaos travelling to and from work today..., Road chaos for holiday drivers, Passengers using the rail service, which connects London to Paris and Brussels, face travel chaos, Heavy snow sparks transport chaos as icy blast grips Britain, Britain braces itself for winter weather chaos.

And, before the snow:

Travel chaos ahead as 8in of snow to sweep Britain, Midwife chaos led to death, Crunch climate talks in Copenhagen were in chaos last night..., South Africa: World Cup chaos, America blamed for chaos post-war (surely 'post-war chaos'?), and Homes and businesses face telephone chaos when new dialling codes are introduced.

Also, all since the start of December.

In fact, there's even more 'chaos' on the Express website than 'fury':


Don't they realise that constantly over-stating these things makes them entirely ineffective, like the boy who cried wolf? Can't someone buy them a thesaurus for Christmas?

It's just poor and lazy journalism and it makes them look hysterical. But that's hardly surprising for the Express.

TaxPayers' Alliance and Mail team up to attack BBC

The Mail's latest pathetic assault on the BBC comes in a story about trees. BBC under fire for Autumnwatch tree giveaway costing licence fee payers £150,000 reveals:

The Beeb is handing out 300,000 free trees at a thousand different garden centres, nurseries and DIY stores nationwide.

Each sapling has cost the corporation 32 pence - £96,000 in total

Yes, that's £96,000 on trees, not the £150,000 claimed in the headline. But the story adds:

This summer, it spent £57,500 on giving away 250,000 packets of vegetable seeds at 23 pence per pack as part of its 'Dig In' campaign.

So in tree-planting and 'grow your own veg' campaigns linked to the nature series Autumnwatch, the BBC has spent £153,500 on seeds and saplings.

This is an excellent idea and - refreshingly - several of the comments on the Mail story think so too. (Just to annoy the TPA and Mail: If you want to join the campaign and plant a tree on 5 December, the Autumnwatch website has all the details)

Of course, when you see the words 'under fire' you know this is the work of some publicity-hungry, rent-a-quote group who want to see their name in the paper:

The Taxpayers' Alliance has accused [the BBC] of misusing licence fees as if it were a 'charity with a bottomless pit of cash'.

Yes, predictably, it's them. Susie Squire from the TPA adds:

'It is totally misguided for the BBC to blow huge amounts of licence-payers' cash on trees and vegetable seeds when there are numerous worthy bodies working on these causes'.

'Huge amounts of licence-payers' cash'? Really?

If you take the overall BBC income for 2009 as a starting point - which is £4.6billion - then £153,000 amounts to 0.0033%.

Even if you are feeling generous and work out the percentage from the licence fee and government grants (so excluding sales) then £153,000 equals 0.004%.

It's 0.0034% of the BBC's £4,491.7 billion 2009 expenditure.

It's 1,073 licence fees.

It's a non-story.

But we now know this: the TPA thinks 0.003% is 'huge'.

Mail attacks attempts to improve relations with Gypsies on day terrorised Roma flee country

Two new developments in the case of the Romanians in Belfast.

Overnight, City Church, which gave refuge to the families after they were forced out of their homes, had its door and main windows smashed. The pastor says linking the two events would be 'guesswork' but it would be good guesswork.

Then came news that of the 114 people who were targeted, 100 were going to return to Romania. So not only have they been forced from their homes, they have been forced out of the country.

A deeply depressing state of affairs. One so serious that the Daily Mail can't even be arsed to assign a named journalist to the story, so its byline is 'Daily Mail Reporter', who produces 532 words on it. The Sun doesn't appear to have covered the story at all, while the Express deems it worthy of 308 words.

And it gets even more depressing, because the Mail then dedicates 620 angry words to the story Fury as police force holds party for local gipsies to 'improve relations' with travellers . The idea that the police - or indeed, anyone - might be trying to improve relations between locals and the Gypsy and Traveller community on the day 100 Roma have been forced to flee the country after racist attacks against them enrages the Mail. It's a twisted logic all the Mail's own.

Of course, the 'fury' it mentions in the headline is, as always, not really fury at all. It's the Taxpayers Alliance (who Anton has been chasing) doing their rent-a-quote-fury schtick. Are they really arguing: 'How dare the police spend two thousand pounds trying to improve community relations'?

Coming so soon after stoking anti-Gypsy feeling with its wildly exaggerated 'story' about NHS provision and blaming the Belfast Roma for their plight because they're all criminals, the bile and hate in the Mail's agenda is sickening. As one of the comments left on the story says: 'So not only do these people get health service priority, they're using our money to give them a party. Come on for God's sake, something has to be done'. And that seems to be exactly what the Belfast hate mob thought and it's what the Mail thinks. If they knew how, they should be ashamed.