The Sun's editorial(s) on Norway

In the aftermath of the tragic events in Norway on Friday, several media outlets began to speculate as to who was responsible and, predictably, fingers were pointed at Muslims.

The front page of Saturday's Financial Times referred to 'Islamist extremism fears', while the Sun mentioned a 'homegrown al-Qaeda convert' and a 'homegrown Islamic convert' in its coverage:

(Every British national newspaper put this atrocity on the front page on Saturday except the Mail and the Express. What stories did they consider more important? The Mail went with '150 human hybrids grown in UK labs', while the Express led on 'Cleared: Man who killed burglar'. They also included a story on their front pages about the exhibiting of the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress at Buckingham Palace.)

But if you visit the Sun's website, it will appear that yesterday's editorial about events in Norway read:

Norway's pain

Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.

Terrorism brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.

The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.

How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.

Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.

The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.

But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.

The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.

Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.

Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.

Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.

Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.

Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.

We share their pain. We salute their courage.

But for readers of the print version of the newspaper, the editorial looked quite different. The sections in bold are the words removed from the current online version:

Stand strong with Norway

Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.

Terrorism, the scourge of the West, brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.

The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.

How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.

Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.

Why Norway? The answer is simple.

Because it is brave. It is a loyal member of NATO and plays its part in Afghanistan and Libya.

It has courageously stood up to Muslim fanatics trying to stir up hatred in Norway, where Islam is the second largest religion.

Recently it refused a grant to an Islamic leader demanding that those who did not observe Ramadan should be decapitated.

By daring to oppose terrorism, Norway has become a victim of it.

Attack

The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.

We do not know if yesterday was the work of al-Qaeda, which has threatened Norway before, or Libyan madman Gaddafi, who has vowed revenge on NATO. Last night one extremist Islamic group had already claimed responsibility.

The lesson for us are clear.

Osama Bin Laden may be dead. But the tentacles of al-Qaeda, and groups linked to it, spread deep into the heart of Western nations.

That is why our security cannot be relaxed, especially with the London Olympics only a year away.

The Government must keep its promise to change the law so our judges can no longer free terror suspects on human rights grounds.

Muslim hate preachers must be arrested, as the law allows. We need the decent Muslim majority to help stop their impressionable young men being recruited as bombers.

We must find every penny our security services need.

We must ask ourselves whether – like Norway – we offer too cushy a life to bogus asylum seekers.

And we must recognise that quitting Afghanistan with the job only half-finished will put Britain in peril.

But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.

The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.

Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.

Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.

Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.

Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.

Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.

We share their pain. We salute their courage.

So despite admitting they did 'not know' if al-Qaeda was reponsible, they put ''Al-Qaeda' massacre' on the front page anyway.

This version of the editorial has been deleted from the Sun's website and the 'new' version contains no mention of the fact it has been amended.

(Post updated following Terry's comment to correct the Duchess of Cambridge's title.)

Tangerinegate

Following the release of Starsuckers, you might think that the media would be a little more careful about publishing unlikely gossip without doing some research or fact-checking.

But they're not. And so, thanks to Robert Popper, we have 'Tangerinegate'.

In the midst of the claims about Gordon Brown's temper, Popper phoned LBC claiming to have first hand evidence of the PM's anger.

While touring a factory where Popper claimed to work, Brown received a phone call which upset him. Soon after:

...he threw a tangerine which he had, and it hit a machine, the actual lamination machine, and the actual fruit got stuck in the machine and clogged the whole machine, the whole machine broke down because of the peel, and it was very embarrassing, we had to sort of stop the tour and he got even more angry and he called the person that gave him the tangerine a citric idiot and shouted.

'Citric idiot'? Did that, and the story as a whole, not ring any alarm bells?

But of course, the allegation - however unbelievable - was what sections of the press wanted to believe in the maelstrom of accusations about whether Brown was a bully.

So The Sun wrote about it in the middle of a longer article covering many allegations about Brown's behaviour:


Unlike Martin Evans and the Telegraph, who gave it much greater prominence:


The FT also covered it, although their blogger Jim Pickard was sceptical from the start:

So yes, he thought the story was 'suspicious', but he still managed to write over 500 words about it.

It also got a passing mention on the BBC comedy show The Bubble.

How long will we have to wait for the corrections?

Mail doesn't put Haiti on front page, plugs free DVD instead

The horrendous events in Haiti dominate Thursday's newspaper front pages, with shocking images appearing alongside words such as 'devastation' and 'hell'.

Although leading with the McCann case, the Express is, unsurprisingly, the most sensationalist. It reports a death toll of 500,000 as a definite:

That figure came from Haitian senator Youri Latortue, although he 'conceded no one really knows.'

No matter that no one really knows, the Express decides to run it - as fact - on its front page anyway. As does sister paper the Daily Star ('500,000 are killed'), who manage to find a little corner for Haiti alongside a tedious lead about Celebrity Big Brother and Jordan.

The Metro, meanwhile, settles for 'up to 500,000' which is quite a margin of error.

Other headlines are more circumspect, and rightly so in such an uncertain situation. The Guardian says there are 'fears' the death toll could rise above 100,000. The Independent and the Times simply state 'thousands'. The Telegraph says 'at least 100,000'; the FT that it 'could be well over 100,000'. Even The Sun plays safe with its '100,000 quake toll fear' headline.

Curiously, the Mirror thinks it is appropriate to drag the title of a Nicolas Cage film into its coverage:


But at least the biggest news story of the day is there on the front.

Because one national daily newspaper (and only one) thinks Haiti isn't worth mentioning on its front page. Apparently, the Daily Mail and its Editor Paul Dacre, regard their Femail magazine and their free Poirot DVD as more important:

Once again, positive immigration story totally ignored

In yesterday's Independent and Financial Times, there were a reports about Eastern European migrants taking jobs and benefits in Britain since EU expansion in 2004. The stories were based on some academic research from University College London, namely Professor Christian Dustmann.

And what did the research conclude?

Immigrants from the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the European Union in May 2004 are less likely to be claiming welfare benefits and less likely to be living in social housing than people born in the UK, according to a new paper from UCL. What is more, they have made a positive contribution to the UK fiscal system, paying more in taxes than they receive in direct and indirect public transfers (such as benefits, NHS healthcare and education).

Here are some of the key facts from their press release:

• A8 immigrants who arrived after EU enlargement in 2004, and who have at least one year of residence – and are therefore legally eligible to claim benefits – are about 60% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and to live in social housing.
  

• Comparing the net fiscal contribution of A8 immigrants with that of individuals born in the UK, in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, A8 immigrants made a positive contribution to public finance.

• In the latest fiscal year, 2008/09, A8 immigrants paid 37% more in direct or indirect taxes than was spent on public goods and services which they received. This is even more remarkablebecause the UK has been running a budget deficit over the last few years.

• In 2008/09, A8 immigrants represented 0.91% of the total UK population, but contributed 0.96% of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6% of total expenditures.

Prof. Dustmann is quoted saying:

“A8 immigrants are on average more educated than natives and figures show that they experience rapid wage growth during their stay in the UK. We should therefore expect their tax payments to increase considerably over the next few years.”

A quick search of each newspaper's website, and Google News, indicates that the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph, Times and Guardian have all ignored these findings. You would think the usual suspects would like a bit of academic research on immigration, rather than relying on half-assed, biased Migrationwatch bullshit.

But when the answer doesn't suit their agenda, they clearly don't have any interest in reporting the facts.

In Janaury 2007, Express editor Peter Hill gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amongst many extraordinary and unbelievable claims ('I constantly reinforce this message, that we must be truthful in what we say'; 'It is very wrong of people to suggest that we cannot be truthful in our headlines. We must be able to be truthful in our headlines') he said the following:

'I think all my journalists are well aware that I do like the newspaper to be fair, and certainly to be truthful; but we have to report what we see. Quite frankly, there is not an awful lot of positive news on this particular subject. I am afraid most of the news is of a very negative nature'.

So here's a positive immigration story. And he doesn't bother running it.

At the same hearing, Mail Managing Editor Robin Esser said:

The idea that they are running around looking for inflammatory things to say about asylum seekers is wrong.

Really? So why has the Mail ignored this UCL research to report on the 'Bloody Siege of Calais', One of Queen's guards is an illegal immigrant, and Three Ethiopian exchange students 'vanish' during trip to Houses of Parliament?

(The Queen's guard story is interesting for the language used. An unnamed military officer uses the phrase 'the potential damage an enemy could do there' as if an illegal immigrant is not only automatically 'an enemy' but also a definite security threat. This was in the same manner as the the Sun's Loo Goes There story about a stowaway on a bus that went to Sandhurst. That story said: 'Afghan illegal who got into Sandhurst could have been a Taliban suicide bomber bent on causing carnage'. Because - of course - all Afghan's are Taliban, and all illegal immigrants are dangerous potential suicide bombers. The Mail version of the Afghan Illegal Immigrant at Sandhurst story, incidentally, included a crucial line towards the end: 'They were unable to confirm the man's nationality.')

Anyway, the same that Hill and Esser were lying through their teeth, The Guardian's Alan Travis told the Committee:

Recent Mori research in this area showed that Daily Express readers think that 21% of the British population are immigrants. The Daily Mail readers say it is about 19%. Guardian readers say it is about 11%. We are all actually exaggerating. It is only 7%.

Yesterday's Independent also included an investigative feature which claimed that in the past 23 days, 21 foreign language students in Brighton had been targeted by criminals. Some of these crimes were thefts from their homes, but there have been several more violent attacks, including two Uzbeki teenagers (14 and 15) being told to 'Speak English' and being called 'Pakis' as the attackers tried to force their way into their house.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.