'Revealed'

Today's Daily Star claims to have a 'Big Brother exclusive':

By using 'exclusive', the Star implies it is actually 'revealing' the 'big sex secret'.

But it is not. 

Today's story (on the front of Richard Desmond's Daily Star) reveals that Brian Dowling, host of Big Brother (broadcast of Richard Desmond's Channel 5), told new! magazine (owned by Richard Desmond) that he'd like Jasmine Lennard - a former partner of Cowell and housemate on Celebrity Big Brother - to reveal some 'sex secrets'.

But the Star told us under the very similar and equally misleading front page headline 'Cowell's secret Big Bro sex romps' on 31 July:

The model, 27, signed a legal agreement never to spill the beans about her sizzling six-month fling with The X Factor boss.

So nothing has been, or looks likey to be, 'revealed'. 

As Star editor Dawn Neesom told the Leveson Inquiry:

We do rely on people picking up the newspaper off the news stands, which is why our front pages have to be as eye-catching as we can make them.

Shame they aren't as accurate as they could make them.

Another 'eye-catching' Star headline on Cowell

The front page of today's Daily Star has, it claims, an 'exclusive':

It is not unusual for Richard Desmond's Star to run stories about programmes broadcast on Richard Desmond's Channel 5.

And with yet another outing of Celebrity Big Brother starting in a couple of weeks, the Star needs to start promoting it now. So we have 'Cowell's secret Big Bro sex romps' on the front page.

Has Simon Cowell - who isn't dead - been having 'secret Big Bro romps'...whatever that means?

Here's the story:

Simon Cowell’s stunning ex-lover Jasmine Lennard is set to give TV censors a nightmare on Celebrity Big Brother next month.

The model, 27, signed a legal agreement never to spill the beans about her sizzling six-month fling with The X Factor boss.

However, the sexy lass is struggling to keep her lips sealed.

Oh. So someone who apparently had a 'fling' with Simon Cowell six years ago is going on Celebrity Big Brother (and won't be able to talk about it).

As Star editor Dawn Neesom might say, this is a headline that is 'eye-catching' rather than accurate.

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'?

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'.

Daily Star, Big Brother, lies (cont.)

The Daily Star's coverage of Celebrity Big Brother shows no sign of slipping off their front page. It also shows little sign of reflecting actual events.

Wednesday's front page clearly implies 'sobbing' Amy Childs has got the 'BB boot' and has been voted out of the Big Brother house in an 'eviction shock'.

In fact, she's still in the house and hasn't been evicted - as Peter Dyke's article makes very clear.

If the show is as thrilling as the 'Official Big Brother Paper' wants us to believe, why does it feel the need to resort to such blatantly deceptive headlines?

Today's Daily Star front page

Excluding the football, there are three main stories on the front of today's Daily Star:


The lead, continuing the paper's fascination with Celebrity Big Brother, claims:

Celeb Big Brother star and Speaker's wife Sally Bercow wants gypsy hardman Paddy Doherty to be her hubby - swapping Parliament for a caravan.

The article, by Emma Wall, begins:

Smitten Sally Bercow wants to become gypsy hardman Paddy Doherty’s TV “wife” after they bonded on Celebrity Big Brother.

The Speaker’s wife is ready to swap the Houses of Parliament for a caravan park as she trades high-flying husband John for the bare-knuckle brawler.

But the Star eventually admits Bercow has only said she'd like to do an episode of Wife Swap with Doherty. She doesn't actually want Paddy for her hubby.

On the left hand side of the front page, there's the headline 'Jess vows to wed rat', under which it says:

Eastenders star Jessie Wallace has decided to go ahead with her wedding today.

According to the Mail (and Wallace's spokesperson) she didn't.

And in the bottom corner of the front page, the paper claims:

Kate backs Star battle

Kind-hearted Princess Kate is backing the Daily Star's Reclaim the Streets crusade to help victims of the riots that have devastated Britain.

But the article on page 7 admits:

The Duchess of Cambridge was so touched by those she met after the troubles that she is joining Prince Charles’s fight to support disadvantaged children and teenagers.

It continues:

A spokesman said the Duchess, her husband Prince William, 29, and Prince Harry, 26, all had “a strong interest in, and commitment to, helping disadvantaged young people”.

And the spokesman added: “This area of work is one of the key focuses of the Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry and will continue to feature strongly in their charitable work.”

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the article does not once claim that she has specifically backed the Daily Star's campaign.

So two of the 'news' stories on the front page today were dishonestly presented and the third was guesswork that turned out to be wrong.

They did manage to get the football results right, however.

Shock as ghost doesn't actually sell house

Tuesday's Daily Express contains an eye-catching headline on its front page:


It sounds more like a headline from the Sunday Sport than something found in the, ahem, 'world's greatest newspaper'. Anne Diamond was 'sold a house' by a ghost?

Well, although she does claim that the ghost of the previous owner opened the front door when she visited the house for a viewing, that's it.

In fact, that claim of the front page headline doesn't even survive the first two paragraphs of Nathan Rao's article:

Anne Diamond has revealed she was once scared off buying her dream home after coming face-to-face with the ghost of its previous owner.

The TV presenter said she could not bear to live in the house with her children ­knowing it was haunted and so gave it up even though it was perfect in every other way.

And just in case that's not clear enough, there's an actual quote from Diamond:

'I decided not to buy the place after all.'

The story comes from a forthcoming TV show called Celebrity Ghost Stories UK. Surprisingly, it isn't a Channel 5 show, but that doesn't stop the Express mentioning that Diamond is:

a regular guest on Channel 5’s current affairs show The Wright Stuff.

The headline on the online version of the article, incidentally, is 'Haunted house that spooked TV's Anne Diamond'. At least that reflects the content of the article - unlike the attention-grabbing one they've put on the front of the paper.

Flat for sale

'Shameful...finger pointing and character assassination'. That was the reaction of Jo Yeates' boyfriend to media coverage of the arrest of her landlord Chris Jefferies.

Both Enemies of Reason and Minority Thought covered the dreadful, intrusive, guilty-because-we've-decided-he-is 'reporting' at the time.

The Mail called Jefferies 'Mr Strange', 'the 'nutty professor' and 'Professor Strange'. He 'idolised a poet obsessed by death', they claimed. One front page splash carrying a large picture of Jefferies asked 'Was Jo's body hidden next to her flat?'; another wondered if he held 'the key to Joanna's murder'.

The Mirror called him a 'peeping tom'.

The Sun called him 'strange' and 'obsessed by death' and in one article, as Anton pointed out, he was described as:

"weird", "lewd", "strange", "creepy", "angry", "odd", "disturbing", "eccentric", "a loner" and "unusual".

Today, news broke that Jefferies had been released without charge by Avon and Somerset Police last Friday. The Mirror had the story as one of their top stories on their website:


The Sun also had it high up on their homepage:


The Express' resource-starved website also carried the news, albeit below yet another article plugging a programme on Channel 5:

And the Mail? They relegated the latest developments in the case to halfway down their homepage under the headline:


And four sentences into that story:

Police have now confirmed he was discharged from his bail conditions on Friday night.

Will this info be any more prominent in tomorrow's print edition?

Some things never change...

Tabloid Watch began two years ago today.

The first post highlighted an article in The Sun which was plugging Sky HD as the best way to cure the winter blues.

Two years on, the Sun is still at it. Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch launched 'The Daily' - his iPad-only newspaper. Unsurprisingly, Sun Digital Editor Derek Brown was impressed:

Some are calling it as significant as the day in 1788 that the first issue of The Times hit London's streets...

The American football coverage, ahead of this Sunday's Super Bowl, is presented brilliantly. There is a feature about what it's like to stand in the tunnel, accompanied by lovely 3D-style images. There is also a section on top plays which has video running through tactics. The prospect of using this technology with proper football is mouthwatering.

Fashion also works well, with the ability to click on outfits for a more detailed look...

The Daily runs smoothly, downloads quickly and is a promising glimpse into what the future holds.

And it's not just them doing the cross-promotion. Richard Desmond's Daily Star continues to give free advertising to Richard Desmond's Channel 5 - the latest being this puff piece about some upcoming programmes, including the TV show linked to Richard Desmond's OK! magazine...

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.

Express and Star plug new Channel 5 show

Yesterday, Minority Thought noted another example of one of Richard Desmond's newspapers publishing 'news stories' about programmes on Channel 5, which Desmond also owns.

The Express reported that a high street store had agreed to sponsor a soap opera on the channel, and had placed the story far more prominently on its website than was merited.

And both the Express and Star have made sure that none of their readers could possibly miss that Vanessa Feltz has a new show on Channel 5, which started yesterday.

It was one of the Express' TV picks of the day:

Hosting this bright new daily magazine show, Daily Express columnist Vanessa Feltz promises to draw on all her life experience.

She’ll be joined each morning by a prominent guest to talk through the topics of the day, while her partner Ben Ofoedu will be on hand as the programme’s roving showbiz reporter.

And, according to today's Star:

Vanessa Feltz’s new Channel 5 show has already proved a triumph – for her fiancé.

Within minutes of coming off air yesterday, co-host and musician Ben Ofoedu, 38, got a call from Warner Music wanting to sign him up.

The Phats and Small star, who has been engaged to Vanessa, 48, for four years, said: “What a fantastic day!”

Fascinating.

The Express carries two half-page ads for Channel 5 today. One, on page 33, is devoted to Feltz's new show. The second, on page 41, reveals 'today's top 5' and gives the programme another plug.

So what did Express TV critic Matt Baylis think of the show? To no-one's surprise, he liked it:

A lesson in presenting was provided by the queen of morning television, Vanessa Feltz, who’s back like a breath of fresh air and a most welcome addition to the daytime schedules she is.

From the second the opening credits faded in the first edition of The Vanessa Show (Channel 5) she showed why she’s been so missed from our TV screens.

Seeing Daily Express columnist Vanessa in action it’s easy to forget she’s in a television studio and not just chatting away in your front room. It’s a precious gift for any presenter to possess.

The first of her daily weekday guests got things off to a bright and breezy start, as it was former Pussycat Doll Kimberly Wyatt, who revealed she’s such a supple dancer she can stick her toe in her ear!

Vanessa was joined on the new show by her co-host and fiancé Ben Ofoedu, the chemistry between the pair evident for all to see. He hosted another fun item called Reasons To Be Cheerful. Vanessa’s TV appearance is certainly cause for cheer in a gloomy January.

And Tuesday also happens to be the day Feltz has her weekly column in the Express. No prizes for guessing one of the topics she mentions today:

Did you catch The Vanessa Show on Channel 5 at 11am? It's a frothy confection of celebrities, gossip and fun every weekday morning...

Etc, etc.

'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...

McKinstry and The Mentalist

Leo McKinstry's column in today's Express ran with the headline:


The intro to the article says:

Move over Morse. Columbo, hang up that raincoat. Shut it, Sherlock. There’s a new TV detective on the prowl. LEO McKINSTRY is bowled over by 'The Mentalist'...

The Mentalist? Really?

Yes, although the rest of that sentence might help explain why:

LEO McKINSTRY is bowled over by 'The Mentalist', which returns to Channel Five tomorrow.

Ah. It's a programme broadcast on Channel Five which is owned, like the Express, by Richard Desmond.

What a coincidence.

McKinstry is gushing in his praise throughout this shameless puff-piece:

But there has never been a maverick in the crime genre quite like Patrick Jane, the hero of the US TV series The Mentalist, which returns for its third season on Channel Five tomorrow.

That's just in case you didn't catch when the new series starts when it was mentioned three paragraphs before.

And it just goes on and on:

Until the arrival of The Mentalist I had always thought that Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes was in a league of his own as the ultimate TV crime-solver.

And:

The Mentalist is completely different to anyone who has gone before.

And:

So striking are Patrick’s powers of perception he could be taken for a mind-reader.

And:

The Mentalist has a host of other qualities that enhance his appeal, such as his rich sense of humour, reflected in the wide smile. Again this contrasts with the innate grumpiness that seems to characterise so many detectives.

And:

Another crucial ingredient that [write Bruno] Heller provides is a tremendous sense of narrative power.

And the final paragraph:

As series three starts there is a dark sense of foreboding, eerily similar to Sherlock Holmes’s fateful battle against Professor Moriarty, which ended with both of them plunging to their doom at Reichenbach Falls. Whatever the final outcome for the Mentalist it will make gripping television.

In all, the Express has devoted just under 1,200 words to plug a programme on Channel Five.

According to the Express website, McKinstry has written 84 articles for the paper this year, the overwhelming majority of which are about politics. This is the first one devoted to a single television programme.

Of course, it is entirely possible that McKinstry genuinely believes The Mentalist is this good.

But given he writes two columns a week for the Express, it seems odd that he doesn't appear to have mentioned it at any time during the previous two series.

The two series broadcast on Channel Five before Desmond owned it.

Northern & Shameless

Here's a short article from the Daily Star:

FREE PORN IN FERTILITY CLINICS SLAMMED BY THINK TANK

Hosptial bosses were last night slammed for supplying porn in fertility clinics.

Think tank 2020health.org said providing DVDs and magazines to help men produce sperm samples promoted “adultery of the mind”. Some health trusts spend £100 a year on the material.

Julia Manning, the report’s author, said: “Pornography deprives women of full human status and reduces them to sex objects.”

So how does the Star decide to illustrate a story about a report that criticises porn for its 'debasing treatment of women' and for 'reducing women to sex objects'?

Like this:


The bit that I've blacked out shows six women in various stages of undress in various poses.

The Star has taken the view that this story is the perfect time to advertise porn. And not just any porn but Television X - owned, like the Daily Star, by Richard Desmond.

(Other cross-promotion from the Star today: two mentions of Matthew Wright celebrating ten years at the Desmond-owned Channel Five)

Five Star

The Daily Star is well known for writing sensationalist but untrue stories about celebs, computer games, films, immigration, Islam, reality TV, the McCanns, volcanic ash clouds and much more besides.

But it's not all made-up crap.

In the last month, the Star has become notable for one other type of story too - the puff piece for Channel Five:



Obviously this is absolutely unconnected to the fact that the Star's owner, Richard Desmond, recently bought Channel Five.

A year ago, Desmond lost (yes, lost) his libel case against Tom Bower. While giving evidence, he said, under oath, somewhat surprisingly, that:

'I give no orders on the editorial. The editor decides what goes in the papers.'

Presumably, the lack of Star articles about Channel Five's ratings, programmes and presenters before Desmond bought the channel is mere coincidence.

MediaMonkey noted on 27 July that the Star's TV critic Mike Ward seemed to have started noticing Channel Five programmes rather more:

...his "What's hot to watch today" column in today's paper features no fewer than four Five programmes out of a total of six recommended: Neighbours and three episodes from CSI and franchises, one of which is at least four years old.

And it wasn't just the Star:

Over at the Express, meanwhile, Ward's opposite number Matt Baylis reflects on last night's TV, penning a lengthy piece in praise of Neighbours, above a fact box detailing several things you might not have known about one of its former stars, Stefan Dennis.

And it wasn't just that day.

On 28 July, three of Ward's five recommendations were on Channel Five. On 30 July it was four out of six. On 6 August three of six. And on 12 August, Baylis was praising Neighbours again.

Of course, Desmond's lot aren't the only ones playing this game - the Sun praises Sky while Sky News tries to avoid debate about phone-hacking at the News of the World.

It is tiresome and obvious. But, sadly, it seems inevitable that such cross-media promotion follows cross-media ownership.