Littlejohn reheats 're-using jam jars' story

Richard Littlejohn devotes much of his column in today's Mail to the horsemeat scandal. In it, he says:

Funny how the EU can enforce strict food hygiene regulations which prevent the Women’s Institute selling jam in second-hand jars but can’t stop Eastern European horsemeat being passed off as beef.

Regular readers may remember this 'story' from October, when the EC Commission Representative in the UK dismissed tabloid stories on a 'ban' on re-using jam jars at fetes as:

completely untrue. There are no EU laws, new or old, which ban re-using old jam jars for fetes.

A question was asked in the European Parliament on this issue following the media coverage. The answer, from Tonio Borg for the European Commission, was published on 14 December. It made clear:

In the Guidance document on the implementation of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (SANCO/1731/2008 Rev. 6), the Commission indeed specified that "the occasional handling, preparation, storage and serving of food by private persons at events such as church, school or village fairs are not covered by the scope of the Regulation"...

Therefore, the Commission can confirm that, as long as the preparation, handling and selling of jams at local events to raise money for worthy causes is an occasional activity, it is not covered by Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. Rules governing such activities are established by Member States under national law.

A WI press release from 4 January 2013 confirmed:

Legislation is predominantly aimed at food businesses and excludes occasional activity with respect to charities; therefore the recent interest does not apply to infrequent charitable activities. 

Despite all this, Littlejohn claims not only that there are 'strict' regulations banning the WI selling jam in re-used jars, but that the EU are 'enforcing' them.

(Hat-tip to James)

Mail's apology to Duke of York

The Mail has published the following apology to the Duke of York:

Articles of 7 and 14 May 2012 said that the Duke of York had demanded a private plane, travelled in a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce and snubbed free accommodation for his official Diamond Jubilee visit to India. We now accept that the Duke had no personal involvement in the decision to charter the plane, did not travel in a Rolls, and that the British High Commissioner’s residence was deemed too small for his party on this occasion. We apologise to the Duke of York for the misunderstanding.

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.

'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)

'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.

Star's latest example of an 'embellished and inaccurate' headline

The front page of Saturday's Daily Star boasts an 'exclusive':

'Ash and Dec's Secret Jungle Date'. It's yet another story from I'm A Celebrity which has been on the front page of the Star almost every day since the series started.

Just below the 'Exclusive' banner we're told:

Sex-starved TV babe Ashley Roberts wants a date with I'm A Celebrity host Declan Donnelly after leaving the jungle, we can reveal.  

So the 'secret date' hasn't actually happened.

This comes two days after the Leveson Report said, in a section on 'deliberately misleading headlines' in which the Star gets several mentions (p.682):

What seems clear is that, faced with a fiercely competitive market, some titles have found themselves on the wrong side of the line between an attention-grabbing but accurate headline and an embellished and inaccurate headline.

'Exactly what happened'

Yesterday, Daily Mail Sport tweeted a link to an article claiming Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini had fallen asleep during his team's recent game against Tottenham Hotspur:

MailOnline's Martin Domin wrote:

Manchester City have yet to hit the heights of their Premier League winning campaign last season but they haven't been so bad to send anyone to sleep.

But that is exactly what happened at the Etihad Stadium on Sunday when City boss Roberto Mancini appeared to nod off during injury time in the first half.

And it's not as if his side were winning at the time - Tottenham were in front thanks to a Steven Caulker header.

Thankfully for City's title hopes, Mancini woke from his slumber in time to deliver a half-time team talk that inspired his men to victory after goals from Sergio Aguero and Edin Dzeko.

But if you try to click on that link now, you get a 'The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available' error page.

Why?

Probably because Mancini didn't actually fall asleep (from Kiimi):

As the Guardian's 'as it happened' report of the match explained:

45 min+1: Aguero takes the ball on his chest masterfully in the box. He finds Silva, who works a slide ball through to Zabaleta. His shot is saved though. The cameras cut to Mancini in his dug out. He looks momentarily interested, sees Zabaleta's shot, then rolls his eyes, slumps in his chair and goes back to talking to himself.

(Hat-tip to Ste)

The People pays damages over drunken proposal 'exclusive'

On 6 November 2011, the People published this 'exclusive':

Charlotte Church has proposed to her boyfriend Jonathan Powell during a boozy pub karaoke night.

The star belted out The Ronettes’ Be My Baby then slumped in a chair next to her man and gave him a huge kiss. She told him: “That was for you because I want you to be my baby. Will you marry me?”

He replied: “Yes but I don’t want to be known as Mr Church.”

The pair, both 25, then ordered bottles of champagne “one each” and celebrated into the early hours of last Saturday morning at the pub, the Robin Hood in Cardiff.

A friend said: “Jonathan was thrilled and Charlotte was very happy. She was singing I’m Getting ­Married in the Morning as we helped her to the taxi afterwards.”

Church immediately issued a statement, pointing out the story was rubbish:

"This story is a complete fabrication. I have not proposed to my boyfriend, drunkenly or otherwise. It is embarrassing for me (and him) for our families and friends to read that I have.

I was not in the pub they mention on the night they allege this happened. I haven't been there for 5 months. At the time that I was apparently drunkenly proposing I was in fact performing in a completely different town with a large public audience.

There is literally not one shred of truth in this story, and it is still alarming to me that lies of this scale can be printed. This is not journalism. It's a perfect example of why this out of control tabloid industry needs regulation immediately."

Today, the paper has agreed to pay substantial damages and legal fees, has apologised and agreed not to repeat the accusations. Lawyers for the People said in court that it:

accepts that the story was completely untrue and should not have been published. It has previously apologised in the newspaper and online for publishing the allegation, which it accepted was incorrect after Charlotte first complained.

There's no explanation has to how the People came to publish the story and all those fictional quotes. It is also worth noting that the Mail and Sun were quick to repeat the People's claims without doing any fact-checking of their own.

The People had already published one apology - three weeks after the original story appeared and, coincidentally, one day before Church gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry. The Inquiry was told that apology was a 'unilateral one' and 'just not good enough'.

Sorry we said you were a convicted drug dealer

Associated Newspapers in Ireland has apologised after articles in the Irish versions of the Mail and Mail on Sunday falsely accused someone of being a 'convicted drug dealer'. The Independent in Ireland reports:

A businessman who was falsely referred to as a convicted drugs dealer in newspaper reports about the funeral of RTE broadcaster Gerry Ryan has received a High Court apology.

Associated Newspapers (Irl) Ltd, publishers of the Mail titles, unreservedly apologised to Aidan Cosgrave for the injury to his reputation and for the distress and embarrassment caused to him.

The apology stated Mr Cosgrave is not a convicted drug dealer and has never dealt in drugs.

Mr Cosgrave (55) of Londonbridge Road, Sandymount, Dublin, took the action after the Irish Mail on Sunday and the Irish Daily Mail published reports on December 12 and 13, 2010, about the funeral of the RTE broadcaster.

One of the reports was headed "Convicted drugs dealer was at Gerry's funeral".

The articles had been published in the context of the controversy surrounding the finding of the inquest into the death of Gerry Ryan, who had died on April 30, 2010.

When the case was called before Mr Justice Eamon deValera today, Frank Callinan SC, instructed by solicitor Robert Dore, for Mr Cosgrave, told the judge it had been resolved and an apology from Associated Newspapers was read to be read in court.

This report, the apology stated, was illustrated by a photograph of Aidan Cosgrave present as a friend of Gerry Ryan as a mourner at the funeral and who was said, in both articles, to be a convicted drug dealer.

"Mr Cosgrave is not a convicted drug dealer and has never dealt in drugs," the apology stated.

"Further, any suggestion from our reports that Mr Cosgrave had supplied cocaine to Gerry Ryan that might have contributed to his death or otherwise is wholly unfounded.

"We unreservedly apologise to Mr Cosgrave for the injury to his reputation and for the distress and embarrassment caused to him," the apology stated.

Mr Justice deValera was told the case could be struck out.

In the proceedings, it was claimed Mr Cosgrave was a close personal friend of the late RTE broadcaster and he was deeply distressed at his untimely death and had attended the funeral as a mourner.

(via Roy Greenslade)

Mail and Sun remove articles about 'riot' by football fans

Stephen Wren posted the following on FansOnline about articles that appeared in the Sun and Mail in February claiming there had been a riot after an abandoned football match:

After the Ipswich match was abandonded a couple of stories appeared in the press stating that Boro fans had 'gone on the riot' or 'rampage'. It said police were inspecting CCTV tapes in order to track down people involved.

I happened to be in the very close vicinity to the incident and recognised that the stories bore little resemblance to fact (indeed about the only fact that was correct was that the game was abandoned and the teams were Boro and Ipswich!).

I contacted Suffolk Police; Ipswich Town and the Boro offering my services as a witness to the event (and stating the actual facts). Ipswich and Suffolk police got back to me very quickly saying the story was basically a work of fiction.

I contacted the papers stating that their story was wrong in almost every element; giving the factual version of events and backing it up with the comments of Ipswich Town and the Police. They didn't reply.

I wrote again stating that they were in brech of the Press Complaints Commission Editors Code of Conduct (both in their article and in not correcting information that had been shown to be seriously inaccurate) and that I would make a formal complaint unless the stories were corrected.

Still no reply so I formally complained to the PCC who, initially, tried to suggest I couldn't complain as I was not the person 'wronged' and that any complaint must come from the club (who they advised had not complained about the articles).

I stated that, as a fan of MFC who was present at the game , I was being tarnished by the false story and therefore I was an injured party in the case. The PCC relented and agreed to take the complaint forward.

After some back and forth communication between myself, the papers and the PCC it was agreed that the stories were not accurate and both papers removed the stories from their websites and databases.

Additionally I recieved a personal apology from each paper.

The PCC confirms (Mail/Sun):

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article and a private letter of apology from the newspaper explaining the reasons for its failure to make direct contact with the complainant.

This suggests there will be no printed correction.

(Hat-tip to @quizeye)

Mail on Sunday reporters forget they won a £400 iPad

Last week's Mail on Sunday led on an investigation into the website Yipiii:

They also devoted pages six and seven to it:

Yet on 29 May, another article on the Mail website - in the This Is Money section - had been rather positive about Yipiii. Simon Lambert's article began:

If you want to buy something why not play to win it for free first, especially if you can’t lose your stake?

That, in a nutshell, is the theory behind Yipiii, a new website, which offers an ingenious new twist on cashback and reward shopping.

Lambert gave quite a positive answer to a question posed in the headline: 'Is Yipiii a winner?'

Befitting its aim to inject some fun into internet shopping, Yipiii is bold, colourful and easy to use...

It’s true that this moneyback element does essentially make Yipiii risk-free, as any money put in you can get back out, and, in fact, thanks to free spins etc, you actually get back more than you put in...

You sense that if Yipiii could achieve critical mass it could prove to be genuinely revolutionary, as online shops will be extremely interested in signing up and offering good deals – certainly the calibre of partners so far is impressive.

The idea has legs, and so for the curious, it’s definitely worth a spin. Who knows maybe one day the concept will have spread far enough that you could fill the car up with petrol and then spin the wheel to see if you can drive away without paying a penny.

The Mail on Sunday's rather more critical article claimed - in the box at the bottom of page seven - that their reporters had spent £162 on the website and:

only won a £19.99 fish bowl. 

They also claimed:

The reporters did not use the free plays they were offered. 

Yet now, one week later, the Mail on Sunday has published a damning correction and apology:

In our front-page report last week we said Mail on Sunday reporters had spent £162 on Yipiii plays but won only a £20 toy goldfish bowl.

In fact, one reporter used ‘free plays’ acquired during the experiment and went on to win an iPad worth up to £400.

And in a different experiment another journalist spent £40 and won £35 of flowers and a £101 iPod Nano.

We apologise to Yipiii for not mentioning these.

Also, we said customers can top up their accounts as often as they like. In fact, top-ups are limited to £200 per day.

So having claimed they didn't use the free plays and only won a goldfish bowl toy, it emerges they did use the free plays and won an iPod Nano and an iPad - £556-worth of prizes, rather than £20.

The question is: why did the Mail on Sunday's reporters 'forget' to tell their readers that they won these other prizes?

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'.

Express front page headline on scrapping Britain dismissed as 'total fantasy'

The front page of today's Express claims there is a 'EU plot to scrap Britain' and that Eurocrats want to 'wipe us off the map'.

Yes, really:

Critical comment seems almost pointless...

However, this 'exclusive' story from Macer Hall 'reveals':

Senior Eurocrats are secretly plotting to create a super-powerful EU president to realise their dream of abolishing Britain, we can reveal.

A covert group of EU foreign ministers has drawn up plans for merging the jobs currently done by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

Hall doesn't really explain how this merger - if it happens - would actually lead to Britain being 'scrapped'. He doesn't name the 'senior Eurocrats' who want to 'abolish Britain'. Precise details of this 'plot' are hard to find within the article.

But it does mention that this new post will be:

a modern-day equivalent of the European emperor envisaged by Napoleon Bonaparte or a return to the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne that dominated Europe in the Dark Ages.

The article includes quotes from three anti-EU politicians, but nothing from any official EU spokesperson. Reader comments on the Express website include: 'Hitler would be proud', 'The rise of the anti-Christ and few recognize it' and 'Quite simply this is an act of war'.

There's also one from the European Commission Representative in London, who says:

Quite simply, this article is nonsense.

As other posters point out, the EU has no power or desire to "scrap Britain"...or Germany, or France, or Lithuania. Merging the Barroso and Van Rompuy posts would require UK agreement. And it is total fantasy to leap from speculation on this to ludicrous claims about scrapping nation states. EU treaties are decided by national leaders, with each having a veto, and EU law is decided by national Ministers and MEPs, not by mythical bogeyman Brussels bureaucrats.

In January, Express editor Hugh Whittow told the Leveson Inquiry (under oath):

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

Mail clarifies 'inaccurate' article about the BBC

On 17 February, the Mail published the article 'Half of BBC staff who pocketed £4m pay-off carried on working in the same job'.

The paper claimed:

The BBC spent £4million laying off staff – only for nearly half of them to continue working as normal.

The money was paid to around 70 workers as compensation because their posts were being relocated north to Salford. But after accepting the ‘redundancy’ money – £57,000 each, on average – about 17 of them simply carried on in the same jobs, it is understood.

The BBC responded with a statement that said the Mail's article was:

inaccurate and misrepresents the facts

Today, the Mail has published a clarification:

An article on February 15 suggested that 17 BBC workers had carried on in the same jobs after accepting redundancy money of £57,000 each. We are happy to clarify that, while their leaving dates were delayed, the workers did not in fact receive their pay-offs until they had left.

Once again, we see the Mail trying to downplay the original claim, reducing it to just a 'suggestion'. 

Moreover, the Mail says it is now 'happy to clarify' that the pay-offs were not received until after the workers had left.

But this is exactly what the BBC told the paper in the original story:

It confirmed some staff did stay on working ‘to help manage the transfer of the operation’ but said they did not receive their payoffs until they left.

Needless to say, this was left to the third-last sentence of the article. But clearly it was ignored by the paper and its journalist Sam Greenhill. If only the Mail had listened, rather than writing the story it wanted to write regardless, then this clarification - which includes no apology - wouldn't have been necessary.

Furthermore, at time of writing, the original article remains live on MailOnline with the inaccuracy intact. It has not been edited, and the clarification has not been added.

Savaged to death by a dog...or natural causes?

This morning, both the Sun and MailOnline covered the death of Cassandra Smith in Nuneaton:

The Sun's article, written by Andrew Parker, goes into some detail:

A brave mum was savaged to death by the family dog in front of her five children as she tried to stop it attacking them.

Petite Cassandra Smith, 49, leapt in to fight off the frenzied Alsatian when it went for daughters Charlotte, 28, and Annette, 26.

But the snarling animal flew at her and sank its jaws into her face and throat.

Her five terrified kids — including Shelley, 25, Kayleigh, 21, and Jayson, 30 — looked on screaming in horror.

The first comment on the Sun's article seems to have been posted online at 7:49pm yesterday and the story was in today's paper. The MailOnline version went up this morning, suggesting it was 'borrowed' from the Sun.

Yet five hours before that comment, Warwickshire Police issued a statement saying such 'rumours' were 'unfounded':

She had told a family member that she was feeling unwell the night before her body was found.

At the current time there is no evidence to support rumours, circulating in the local community, that she died from injuries inflicted by the family dog.

A post mortem has taken place today and has found:

that she died from natural causes as a result of a pre-existing medical condition.

The examination established that injuries to the woman’s face were caused after she had died.

The woman was found in her bedroom by an adult member of her family on Tuesday morning. The woman had stated she had been feeling unwell the previous evening.

A juvenile dog, believed to be a bull mastiff, staffie cross, aged approximately five months old, which was found in the room with the woman, has been destroyed following consultation with the family.

An elderly German Shepherd dog, that was in another room in the house, was not involved in the incident.

A report into the woman’s death will now be prepared for the Coroner and an inquest will be held at a later date.

The Sun and MailOnline articles have now vanished.

(Hat-tip to Darryl Murphy)

Richard Desmond and the McCanns

At the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday, there were intriguing exchanges about the McCanns between a clearly unimpressed Robert Jay QC and Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star. Desmond coughed up £550,000 in damages for a relentless barrage of defamatory articles and all his papers published front page apologies which read:

The Daily and Sunday Express have taken the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.

We did so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.

We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted.

As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.

Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.

We assure you that we hope Madeleine will one day be found alive and well and will be restored to her loving family. 

Here's how some of the exchanges went at the Inquiry:

Q. But isn't it fair to say, Mr Desmond, that if you look at the hard facts, I think the McCann litigation involved 38 defamatory articles. It is right, and Mr Ashford has drawn to our attention that there are other newspapers who also perpetrated defamations, but not to the same extent as your papers.

A. Is that -- I'm not sure that's right. I'm not sure that's right at all.

Q. If it's wrong, Mr Sherborne here, who -- the McCanns are his client -- will demonstrate that in due course, but it's certainly my understanding that we're talking about 38 defamatory articles over a four-month period and that your paper was guilty, if I can put it in those terms, of the most egregious and serious defamations, and other papers were guilty of defamations of perhaps less severity in terms of quantity. Do you accept that?

A. Once again, I don't wish to minimise it, right? But four months is -- let me see now, it's 12 weeks?

Q. It's 17 weeks, on my reckoning.

A. 17 weeks, thank you. 17 weeks times 6 -- you have to help me again.

Q. 102, is it, Mr Desmond? I don't know. You're the businessman.

A. Well, I don't know. 102, very good. Is 102.

Q. Yes.

A. And there were 37 --

Q. 38.

A. I'm not trying to win points here, because we did do wrong, but I could say there were more, if there were 102 articles on the McCanns, there were 38 bad ones, then one would say -- and I'm not trying to justify, please, I'm not trying to justify anything, but you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones.

In other words: yes, we may have accused the McCanns of 'selling their daughter for money and hiding her body in a freezer', but hey, some of our other articles were 'good'.

Yes, you 'could argue' that, although it's hard to see why you'd want to.

Moreover, just because the stories weren't defamatory doesn't make them 'good'.

Desmond continued later:

A. At the end of the day, the McCanns, you know, as I understood it, although I've never met them, were perfectly -- if we ran it for four months, you know, it took them a long time to get involved in a legal dispute with us. They were quite happy, as I understand, in articles being run about their poor daughter, because it kept it on the front page. I think it was only when new lawyers came along, who I think were working on a contingency, that the legal --

Q. I can't --

A. Well, that's the facts. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. Mr Desmond I'm going to interrupt you.

A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. That must be a grotesque characterisation.

A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of having killed their daughter. Are you seriously saying that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?

A. I'm sitting here --

Q. Just think about the question before you answer.

A. I'm going to answer your question, and I've already answered it. We ran -- on your suggestion, we've run 102 -- your figure, 102 articles. For four months you say we ran it, right? Nothing happened, to the best of my knowledge, until a new firm of lawyers were instructed, who were on a contingency, that then came in to sue us.

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said in response to Desmond's evidence:

"Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice. For him to suggest that Kate and Gerry were happy with Express Newspapers' coverage, he must be living in a parallel universe." Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughters' disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme", he added. He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured.

Still, at least Desmond's many apologies to the McCanns sounded genuine. Didn't they?

But once again, please, I do apologise to the McCanns. I'm not trying to -- I am very sorry for -- you know, I am very sorry for the thing and I am very sorry that we got it wrong, but please don't, you know, try and -- every paper was doing the same thing

...

once again I do apologise to the McCanns, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but there are views on -- there are views on the McCanns of what happened. And there are still views on the McCanns of what happened.

Somehow, ending an apology with 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' doesn't suggest it's entirely heartfelt.

Neesom and Whittow give evidence to Leveson

Today, the Leveson Inquiry heard from Dawn Neesom, editor of the Daily Star, and Hugh Whittow, editor of the Daily Express.

Neesom asserted:

we write stories to be as accurate as possible.

Regular readers of this blog might find that claim rather surprising. So might Rockstar Games, who the Star accused of planning a Grand Theft Auto game based on Raoul Moat. In their apology for that story, they admitted:

We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story. We also did not question why a best selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event.

Neesom was given the front page from 2 June 2011, which carried the headline 'Telly King Cowell is dead'. As we know, Simon Cowell is still alive. Robert Jay QC said 'it's wrong, isn't it?'

Neesom replied:

Um ... it's dramatic. Eye-catching.

She attempted to justify the clearly inaccurate and misleading headline like this:

"Telly king Cowell is dead" in particular was a quote from Gary Barlow, and obviously -- you only have a finite amount of words you can fit on a page 1 as a headline. The subject explains as far as a TV show is concerned, I believe the exact quote was -- and obviously Gary Barlow was only joking, because that's the nature of their relationship -- "As far as we're concerned, Cowell's dead", as far as the show was concerned, and that is explained in the sub-deck and the copy. But yes, it was designed to be an eye-catching headline.

Which might, might, be fair enough if the headline had been in quote marks and if the quotes she attributed to Gary Barlow in her evidence had actually been said by Gary Barlow. Or, indeed, anyone else.

But the original article made no such claim. In fact, the word 'dead' appears nowhere other than in the headline. What Barlow had actually said was 'Simon who?' when asked if he had taken any advice about being a judge on The X Factor.

Jay then asked Neesom about the Star's scaremongering 'Terror as plane hits ash cloud' front page headline of 21 April 2010. This appeared just after planes had started flying again after being grounded because of the ash cloud. Only inside the paper did the Star reveal this was actually a picture - and a story - from a televsion reconstruction of an incident that happened in 1982. Neesom claimed she was unaware that Gatwick and other airports had removed the paper from newsagent shelves overs fears it could create panic. Three months later, the Star published an apology. What was Neesom's view of the headline now?

It maybe overegged the pudding and occasionally headlines go too far. Maybe this was one of them.

Yeh. Maybe.

She was also asked about the 7 September 2011 front page headline 'Sex tease Amy get BB boot'. This was one of the Star's many front page headlines about Celebrity Big Brother and included the sub-head 'Eviction shock for sobbing telly babe'. At the time of the headline, Amy Childs had not been evicted from, or booted out of, the Celebrity Big Brother house.

Was this another bit of 'overegging'? Maybe, but Neesom's memory had suddenly gone blank:

I honestly don't remember this story, I'm sorry. I don't know what the "boot" refers to. It could have been from The Only Way is Essex, from her agency. I'm not familiar with the story, I'm sorry.

In fact, it couldn't have been from The Only Way is Essex - she left that programme to appear on Celebrity Big Brother. In any case, the wording of the headline was pretty clear.

Jay persisted:

Q. ...it is being suggested that the boot is the eviction from Big Brother, isn't it?

A. As I say, I'm not familiar with this story, so I don't know.

Jay questioned Neesom about another front page headline: 'Muslim thugs age just 12 in knife attack on Brit schoolboy'. Her response?

I must confess I am not familiar with this particular story.

Part of the problem with this headline was that there wasn't a 'knife attack' but threats made on Facebook. Jay asked:

Q. ...but the wording "Muslim thugs aged just 12 in knife attack", that does suggest to one objective reader, at least, that there was a physical attack on whom you describe as a Brit school --

A. Yes, I agree it could be interpreted that way.

Q. Could be or could only be interpreted in that way?

A. I said I'm not familiar with this story and I didn't write the headlines, so ...

Q. Again, it's the tendentious language. The Muslim thugs are British, yet it's the "Brit schoolboy". So you have the very uncomfortable juxtaposition and a tendentious message you're transmitting, would you accept?

A. I think it could be interpreted that way. As I said, I'm really not familiar with this story, which is a bit frustrating.

Q. You're resisting, or you're entitled to resist, the interpretation I'm putting on it, but it might be said that you are overresisting an interpretation which is the only interpretation you could fairly put on this story; wouldn't you agree?

A. I think -- yes, you can interpret it in the way you've interpreted it, and obviously people have done, you know, for which is -- you know, is not good.

Q. It's not good, but what, if anything, is being done about it to address this bias, Ms Neesom? Because you're the editor, you're the person responsible for this sort of message.

A. Yes, absolutely. We are not biased against Muslims.

This may seem a questionable claim from a paper that has published front page headlines such as 'BBC puts Muslims before YOU!' and 'Christmas 'nicked' by Muslims' - among many other stories. When pushed on some of her paper's coverage of Islam, she maintained:

We do have a balanced agenda.

This from the editor of the paper that was told off by the PCC for their untrue 'Muslim-only public loos' front page. She promised to provide the Inquiry with examples of this 'balanced agenda'. Whether that file will include a copy of the scrapped-at-the-last-minute Daily Fatwa page remains to be seen.

But what, overall, is Neesom's view on the headlines on the front page of her paper?

The nature of the Daily Star is we are a very young tabloid newspaper. We don't have historic readership, we don't have subscription, we don't have home delivery. 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.

Those who remember the disgraceful 'I know who killed Jo Yeates' front page - based on the (incorrect) claims of a psychic - will know 'eye-catching' very often seems a far more important consideration that accuracy.

And what about the stories?

I think the Daily Star has a certain style of writing that appeals to the readers and stories are written in the way we know appeals to the readers. 

Jay asked, in response to that:

Q. There might be a kernel of truth in the story, but in order to make it more appetising and entertaining to its readers, which obviously you are plugged into you spin, embroider and weave around the edges of the story. Does that happen?

A. It's -- I wouldn't quite put it in those words, but as I say, it's written in a style that we know works for our readers.

That wasn't a 'no'. 

After Neesom, Express editor Hugh Whittow gave evidence. He was asked about the Express' blatantly untrue 'Salt banned in chip shops' front page headline. Despite lots of huffing and puffing about rigorously enforced 'diktats' in the story and editorial, there was no such ban.

Jay asked:

Q. Is this right: three chip shops in Stockport took part in a voluntary trial scheme in which extra salt was left behind the counter rather than on it?

A. Yes.

Q. The headline suggested that there was a ban and that it was wide scale, when it was neither; is that correct?

A. It says so: ban in chip shops. So there were three shops and it was an experiment and it would have been -- it would spread out if it was successful or not. It was a good story, everybody was talking about it. Salt in the diet is always an issue, isn't it?

Q. I think the point is that there wasn't in fact a ban. The extra salt was left behind the counter rather than on it --

A. I -- I accept that.

So he accepted, eventually, the headline and thrust of the article was wrong. But it was still 'a good story'.

Whittow added:

I'm not going to say it's the most important story in the world, but it's certainly a talker.

Jay replied, witheringly:

It's certainly not the most important story in the world, but it's found its way to the front page of the Daily Express.

Jay then asked him about another untrue Express headline, this one from 22 October 2011, which stated: '75% say: 'Quit the EU now''. Deliberately inflated to fit the paper's anti-EU agenda, the 75% figure was made up of 28% saying quit and 47% saying renegotiate. Jay explained those figures and asked if the headline was, therefore, misleading. Whittow replied:

I accept that from what you say.

Both of these admissions from Whittow came just after he told the Inquiry:

we don't twist anything. We just present the news of the day.

Evidence of the Express 'twisting' things - especially on Europe - is not hard to find.

But perhaps Whittow's 'finest moment' came when he was asked about the decision of the Express and Star titles to withdraw from the PCC. Jay asked:

Q. So is this right: your feeling is that it was right to leave the PCC because the PCC let you down in failing to stop your paper publishing defamatory articles about the McCanns; is that your evidence?

A. That's one of the reasons, yes.

The 'gangsta salute' that wasn't

When reporting on Mark Duggan's funeral on 9 September, the MailOnline's initial splash headline said: 'Gangsta salute for 'a fallen soldier'' (hat-tip to The Media Blog). This appeared to be based solely on photos that emerged of mourners reaching out towards Duggan's coffin.

However, as the Guardian reported on the day:

As mourners prepared to set off from the house, the bishop called them to stand on the pavement beside the wooden carriage... He urged the mourners to stretch their arms towards the carriage as he prayed.

The next day, the Express - never shy of echoing what has been reported by the Mail - repeated the claim, adding that the 'gangsta salute' (that wasn't) was 'chilling':

The Media Blog commented on this at the time and noted that the Mail did eventually 'tone down' its headline.

Yet according to the PCC, it was only yesterday - three months later - that a clarification appeared on the Mail's website:

An earlier version of this article suggested that mourners lining the streets as Mark Duggan’s body was carried to his funeral made “gang-style” salutes. We have been informed that the salute pictured above referred to a call by Bishop Kwaku Frimpong-Manson at an earlier service for mourners to “stretch [their] hands towards the casket and thank God for Mark’s life as he begins his heavenly journey”. We are happy to clarify this and regret any confusion or distress caused.

As usual, the clarification tries to turn a definite statement into a mere suggestion, and tries to turn 'gangsta salute' into '"gang-style" salutes'. 

But as the Mail did 'tone down' their headline within a day or so, why has it take them so long to admit their error?

And will the Express - which has withdrawn from the PCC - follow the Mail's lead, or will they continue to mislead about the 'gangsta salute'.

Desmond gets his figures wrong

As Richard Desmond unveiled his new printing plant in Luton yesterday, he was asked by the Press Gazette:

why he was making the investment at a time when print newspaper circulations in general are declining.

He replied:

“My newspapers haven’t declined over the last 11 years. The Daily Star was selling 400,000 when we bought it, it now sells around 800,000. Eleven years ago there wasn’t a Daily Star Sunday, it now sells more than 800,000 every Sunday. The Daily Express and Sunday Express are in line with the market.”

He is right that sales of the Star haven't declined overall. But only just - and his figures are completely wrong.

The Daily Star was actually selling 627,317 in November 2000, when he bought it.

Not 400,000.

Based on the October 2011 ABCs, it now sells 658,690 copies per day.

Not 800,000.

The Daily Star Sunday doesn't sell 800,000 every Sunday either.

The figure, from the October ABCs is 688,058. It has benefitted a lot from the closure of the News of the World as back in June it was selling only 305,978 copies every Sunday. 

And the Daily Express? When Desmond acquired it, it had a daily circulation of 985,523.

The October 2011 ABCs show a daily circulation of 614,534.

A decline of 370,989 copies per day.

So he wasn't correct to say there has been no decline over the last 11 years. But at least he didn't repeat the claim he made in June when he said sales of the Express had 'increased dramatically'.

Express: 'every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified'

On Wednesday 23 November, Patrick O'Flynn of the Daily Express penned an article that ran under the optimistic headline 'A year in and our EU crusade is on course for victory'.

Flynn told his readers how wonderful the Express' campaign to withdraw from the EU has been so far and he said:

Over the course of the past year every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified...

Every criticism justified.

Five days before, the Express front page carried the lead headline 'EU says water is not healthy'.

In fact, the ruling by the European Food Standards Agency was about water and dehydration and not about whether water is 'healthy' or not. Indeed, the word 'healthy' doesn't appear anywhere in the EFSA's 7-page ruling. But the Express knew that because at the end they included this:

EU spokesman David D’Arcy said last night: “Of course drinking water is essential for health and the commission is not stopping anyone from saying so."

(More on this story from Richard Laming, Martin Robbins and Tim Fenton)

Also at the end of Giles Sheldrick's article on water was this 'criticism':

The EU has a long history of passing bizarre regulations...last year attempts to regulate the use of root vegetables in Cornish pasties sparked chaos.

But this claim isn't 'justified' either. It was the Cornish Pasty Association that had applied for:

Protected Geographical Indication to request that only Cornish pasties made in Cornwall and to the traditional recipe and manner are called Cornish pasties.

As the Association pointed out in response to inaccurate media reports at the time:

the European Commission (EC) does not dictate ingredients or names of ingredients

It's also not clear what 'chaos' was sparked by this.

In October, the Express joined other newspapers in claiming 'Now Euro killjoys ban children's party toys' which forced the EC Representative in the UK to explain the story was 'nonsense':

"Brussels" has not banned balloons or any of the other things mentioned.

Was the Express 'justified' in claiming the University of Northampton had been fined £56,000 for not flying the EU flag?

No. The response from EC regional spokesman Tom van Lierop:

"you don't have to wave a big flag above a project: that's nonsense...We're not fining anyone...We don't want to be flying the EU flag above any kind of project...these stories are total lunacy."

This wasn't the only 'EU flag' story that the paper got wrong. In May the Express front page said 'Now we must fly EU flag on our public buildings'. The article added that there was:

a swingeing fine from Brussels threatened for those that disobey

Jonathan Scheele, Head of European Commission Representation in the UK and Michael Shackleton, Head of European Parliament Information Office in the UK wrote to the Express:

only 2 buildings in the UK are expected to fly the European flag for Europe Day and the Commission would not fine countries that did not do so...No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May.

The Express' decided not to publish this letter but chose instead to publish three readers' letters that repeated the original claims, despite the paper being aware they were false.

But remember:

every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified.

A few days before that one, another front page headline claimed: 'EU wants to merge UK with France'. The Arc Manche network was set up in 1995 for co-operation between southern British and northern French regions. But this is clearly not the same as 'merging the UK with France'. 'Absurd' and 'untrue' said the EC in the UK.

Also in May, an Express front page stated: 'Ban shopping bags says EU'. As with the healthy water headline, the Express used 'says' when they meant 'haven't said'.

The European Commission had launched a public consultation:

asking the public how best to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags

There was a question about whether a ban was needed, as there were questions about charging for bags and other possible options. The EU has not said 'ban plastic bags'.

Is the EU 'employing 33 people to help boost the EU’s profile in Fiji'? No. Although based in Fiji, the delegation:

covers the entire South Pacific region. It carries out countless development projects on behalf of the EU as well as foreign relations and political work.

Do 'Cars face ban from all cities' as part of 'another plan forced on us by crazy EU'? No:

the European Commission is not considering an EU level ban on cars in city centres by 2050. Cities are of course best placed to decide their own transport mix.

As O'Flynn specified 'the past year' it would, of course, be unfair to mention earlier stories such as 'EU says: hammer British drivers' (once again, they hadn't said this) or 'EU’s plan to liquify corpses and pour them down the drain' ("The EU has no competence in this matter and to suggest otherwise is wide of the mark").

It would be wrong to mention their July 2010 front page headline 'France votes to ban burkha' which came a month after their front page headline 'You can't ban burkha, says Eurocrats' (again, they hadn't said this).

It would not be 'justified' to mention the Sunday Express' claim that the EU was spending '£670million on making explicit films' was overblown. But it was, perhaps, understandable - after all, Richard 'pornographer' Desmond doesn't want too many rivals in the 'explicit film' business, does he?

And it would be best to forget the Express story 'Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs'/'EU spouts off...about our milk jugs'. This took research from a Spanish university and claimed it was evidence that the EU wanted to ban 'our milk jugs'.

Similarly, in October 2011, the Express labelled 'scientists from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM)' as 'Eurocrats'.

These are just some of the Express' anti-EU stories covered by this blog and others over the last couple of years and which have been inaccurate, misleading and wrong.

With the Express newspapers being outside any form of regulation, there is no way to challenge these stories. As shown on the flag issue, when the EU tries to deal with the paper, the Express ignores them and carries on repeating untruths.

Yet to O'Flynn, the paper's Chief Political Commentator:

every criticism we levelled against the EU has been justified...