'Corrections must be given more prominence'

The main headline on the front page of the Mail on 3 January stated there were '4,000 foreign murderers and rapists we can't throw out':

The first line of the story underneath proved the headline wasn't literally true:

Nearly 4,000 foreign murderers, rapists and other criminals are roaming the streets, free to commit more crimes.

A factcheck by the excellent Full Fact concluded:

After Full Fact contacted the UKBA, they confirmed that no published breakdown is available for the types of offences these people served a sentence for. Such information could be obtained by a freedom of information request, but no such requests seem to have been made.

So while we know that there are just under 4,000 foreign national offenders living in the community subject to deportation, there's no evidence as to how many of these are guilty of the offences being suggested. This doesn't sit well with the Mail's headline

Perhaps inevitably, then, there's a clarification in today's Mail, which confirms what Full Fact found three weeks ago:

The headline of an article on 3 January suggested that there are 4,000 foreign murderers and rapists in the UK who cannot be deported.

We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, the figure in fact refers to 3,980 foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists, who are currently subject to deportation orders.

In other words, when the Mail splashed '4,000 murderers and rapists' on its front page, it didn't actually know how many of that 4,000 were guilty of those crimes.

The clarification, however, did not make the front page, where the original error appeared so prominently. Mail editor Paul Dacre said at one of the Leveson seminars in October 2011:

I believe corrections must be given more prominence. As from next week, the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and Metro will introduce a "Corrections and Clarifications" column on page two of these papers.

He said this a couple of months after telling MPs that it was a 'great myth' that corrections are 'buried'.

But today's clarification didn't make page two either. The paper has devoted that page to their 'daily lottery' today. Instead, it's buried towards the bottom of page four:

Quite a difference when compared with the size of the original error - especially from a paper whose editor said that corrections 'must be given more prominence'. 

(Thanks to Nick, Steve and Lee for help with the page four image)

The Mail v Big Fat Quiz of the Year

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

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

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

The Mail said it made:

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

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

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

Ofcom told the Independent that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also argued:

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

But the paper provided no evidence for such a connection.

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

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

too coarse to be repeated in a family newspaper.

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

This morning, the lead story on MailOnline was this:

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

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

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

The Independent revealed a few hours later:

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

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

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

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

The Mail, Mail on Sunday and Pippa's party book

On 30 October 2011, a 'Mail on Sunday Reporter' wrote an article stating that Pippa Middleton was:

close to signing a book deal on how to be the perfect party hostess.

But, the paper warned:

The sisters' parents, Carole and Michael, were widely criticised for appearing to promote their party business on the back of the Royal Wedding earlier this year.

Pippa's advisers will also be careful to avoid the pitfalls of Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's former butler, whose book on hosting parties, Entertaining With Style, was published in 1999.

Mail columnist Peter McKay thought the venture 'distasteful'. Under the headline 'For your sister's sake, don't cash in, Pippa!', he wrote:

In a perfect world, it would be preferable if Pippa Middleton did nothing whatever that was reliant on being the sister of the future Queen Consort. But we, the reading public, have a degree of responsibility for that. Don’t buy it, if she does. Publishers obviously think that, in large numbers, we’d purchase anything by Pippa....

There is an alternative. She’ll always be Kate’s sister. Why not simply be proud of that, avoiding anything that appears to exploit this happy stroke of fortune?

A month later, the Mail on Sunday's Katie Nicholl reported that a £400,000 deal had been signed for the book.

Then, Mail columnist Jan Moir tutted her disapproval:

Pippa Middleton seems a lovely girl, but not the sort who could teach anyone very much about anything. And I can’t imagine the Queen will be best pleased that the ambitious sister of the Duchess of Cambridge has trousered £400,000 for her first book, a manual on entertaining. But never underestimate the Pippa!

A sneak peek of her hostess with the mostest party tips tome reveals the following nuggets: 1. To be a social hit, make sure you have the right equipment: a lovely big sister. 2. Get her to marry the heir to the throne. 3. Remember, bumpkins, it’s napkins, not serviettes. 4. Serve the peanuts before the pud.  5. Is there a hyphen in cash-in?  6. Can I have my money now?

Months later, Amanda Platell attacked the Middletons who, she said:

have an unsettling air of snootiness about their behaviour.

She added:

Why, for example, were Pippa and her brother James in the royal box at Wimbledon last week? Not because of their party-planning and cake-baking credentials, that’s for sure.

Pippa is now about to release her own party-planning guide, for which she’s said to have secured a £400,000 publishing deal. If it wasn’t for the royal connection, she’d be lucky to be writing recipes for the Bucklebury parish magazine.

In July, the Mail published an article (headline: 'Gold medal for cashing in goes to...' etc) about the Middleton's company Party Pieces, claiming it may have been in breach of Olympic advertising rules. When they were given the all-clear, the Mail failed to update its readers. This followed attacks on Party Pieces for their Jubilee merchandise ('could they have been a bit less tacky?') and for 'cashing in' on the Royal Wedding.

However, in yesterday's Mail on Sunday:

Exclusively in this weekend’s Mail on Sunday, you’ll find the first part of Pippa Middleton’s glorious guide to simple, creative entertaining, from her sensational new book – Celebrate: A Year of British Festivities for Family and Friends. This weekend we have 24 glossy pages of magical Hallowe’en tips and brilliant bonfire night ideas.

The Mail on Sunday may have thought it 'glorious' by the Mail's Peter McKay was still not impressed:

Can Her Royal Bottomness really have received a £400,000 advance for this tripe?

And how much more did she receive from the Mail on Sunday?

MailOnline publishes 'creepshots'

On Saturday, the Guardian published an article on creepshots - photographing women without their knowledge (often 'upskirt' photos) - and revenge porn. Early in Kira Cochrane's article, she wrote:

Erin Gloria Ryan, a writer for popular women's website Jezebel.com, was alerted to the [creepshots] forum by concerned Reddit users who are trying to get it closed, partly because some of the pictures appear to have been taken in schools.

A day later, MailOnline's Michael Zennie wrote an article about Reddit and creepshots:

Zennie wrote:

Campaigners are fighting to close an online forum that promotes the photographing of unsuspecting women for users' sexual gratification.

The message board on the popular website Reddit was explicitly created by users who wanted to ogle candid photos that were taken without the subjects' knowledge.

The sub-forum is called 'CreepShots', featuring images of ordinary women on the street, in the gym or even at school who are caught unawares by stealthy 'creeps' with cameras.

Most shots focus on the buttocks or breasts of non-consenting women going about their daily lives - and users admit that 'at least 40 percent' of the images are of underage girls.

Someone at MailOnline then decided to illustrate the article with FOUR of the creepshot photos the article is complaining about.

There is no justification for publishing any of these images. Indeed, MailOnline has now removed all the photos from the article - albeit, some 15 hours after it was first published - a clear indication it knew this was a serious error.

Two of the photos were upskirt shots of schoolgirls whose faces were not shown. There was simply no way for the MailOnline to know how old they were. In one caption, they said:

Another image in a school tries to capture an 'upskirt' of a pupil.

In the other:

Online voyeurism: A large number of the 'Creep' forums are 'upskirt' images, apparently taken in school.

'Online voyeurism' indeed. It's not that unusual for the Mail and MailOnline to display such hypocrisy - as with The X Factor final, it can froth about sexualised images while simultaneously revelling in such material.

But in this case, MailOnline has gone further. It admits the photos were taken 'without permission' and yet deems them suitable to publish. It refers to the fact that many of the images are apparently of 'underage girls', yet deems them suitable to publish. Given the faces are covered, MailOnline has no idea how old any of the girls are, yet deems them suitable to publish.

Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre told Leveson he was "very proud of MailOnline." It won newspaper website of the year at the 2012 Press Awards. MediaGuardian recently named MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke as the 38th most powerful media figure.

* This is the article before the photos were removed - this blog has decided to censor the images:

UPDATE 1: During writing this post, and one hour after removing all the pics, MailOnline edited the article and re-published the first photo.

UPDATE 2: An hour after that, another photo re-appeared, but it was now partly censored with a black box.

(Hat-tip to Simon)

MailOnline and a photo of a nine-year-old girl in tears

From the Street of Shame column in issue 1318 of Private Eye:

“I believe absolutely that one of the main responsibilities of the new regulatory system should be to ensure that the editors’ code is followed both in spirit and the letter by all newspapers, magazines and, importantly, their online versions,” said Paul Dacre in his submission to the Leveson inquiry.

The Mail editor was referring to the Press Complaints Commission’s code and opining on how the press should be regulated. But one morning’s evidence at the end of last month revealed how well that works out in practice when it comes to Dacre’s own domain. 

Crying and holding a bunch of flowers
Media lawyer Giles Crown gave evidence on behalf of Edward Bowles, whose 11-year-old son Sebastian was one of the 28 people, most of them children, who were killed in a coach crash in Switzerland in March. On 15 March, the family were preparing to visit the scene of the crash when an agency photographer took a long-lens photograph of their nine-year-old daughter Helena, who was crying and holding a bunch of flowers she planned to leave at the site of her brother’s death. 

The photograph, captioned “Relatives of victims leave the hotel”, clearly violated clauses 3 (privacy), 5 (intrusion into grief or shock) and 6 (children) of the editors’ code of which Dacre is so fond – and yet the only UK newspaper to use it was the Daily Mail, on its website MailOnline.

Picture kept up for more than three months
The following day Mr Crown, a friend of the Bowles family, contacted both the PCC and editors, including Paul Dacre, on their behalf, to request that “all private photographs of the family… are removed immediately from all media websites, and there is no further publication whatsoever of any such photographs. In particular, there must be no more taking or publication of any photographs of Helena.” 

After a follow-up email sent to “two individuals at the Mail and a general editor’s or news email address as well” two days later, the paper did agree to remove some photographs it had acquired from Mr Bowles’s Facebook account. The picture of the distressed nine-year-old, however, was kept up for more than three months. 

While the inquiry was only able to establish that it had been available online until 19 June, the Eye can reveal that it was only finally pulled from the paper’s website at 11.32am on 25 June – precisely 24 hours before Lord Justice Leveson was due to hear evidence about the case. That evening, Mail managing editor Alex Bannister wrote to the Bowles family to apologise and to point out that at least “this photograph was not published in the Daily Mail” – where it would have been viewed by a mere 1.9m readers, as opposed to the 91.7m monthly users the website boasts. He also claimed that it had been “removed from our website as soon as we became aware that its subject was Helena”. 

The Mail’s excuse was that it thought the paparazzo snap might instead have been of a different, foreign under-ten grieving for their lost sibling. So that’s all right, then.

(The Guardian's report on Giles Crown's evidence to Leveson is here.)

MP seeks apology from the Mail

In yet another column attacking John Bercow ('twisty-faced', 'squawking like a country-lane pheasant'), Mail political columnist Quentin Letts writes:

MPs on both sides of the House are becoming openly scornful of the Chair. Labour’s Jamie Reed has a sulphurous disregard for Mr Bercow. And we may not have heard the last of the Jake Berry business. Mr Berry strikes me as one of life’s terriers. We all know what terriers do to rats.

Jamie Reed was rather surprised by this claim and has written to Letts and his editor:

Dear Mr Letts

I was surprised to read in your online column published on 22 March and in the printed edition of the Daily Mail published on 23 March that "Labour's Jamie Reed has sulphurous disregard for Mr Bercow."

I am surprised for two reasons. First of all, we have never met, let alone spoken with each other and so am intrigued as to how such a baseless representation of my view could ever have been formed. Secondly, my estimation of John Bercow really couldn't be better. In my view, Speaker Bercow has immeasurably improved the House of Commons. Moreover, as Speaker of the House, John Bercow represents one of the most positive influences upon politics in the country at large that I have wtinessed during my seven years as a Member of Parliament.

Unfortunately, the view of the Speaker ascribed to me by you is either the product of geuinely mistaken identity on your part, or else it is a deliberate and knowing lie.

Whatever the genesis of this, clearly both a retraction and as apology are now due at the earlier opportunity.

UPDATE: Letts ended his 27 March column with this:

Let me end by putting right a frightful mistake I made last week about Jamieson Reed (Lab, Copeland). After Squeaker Bercow’s fruity ‘kaleidoscope Queen’ speech, Comrade Reed issued a Tweet saying what a mighty orator Mr Bercow was.

Many of us, including friends of Mr Reed, assumed that he was being sarcastic. But no. The good lad says he meant it!

MailOnline doesn't do research, falls for Twitter joke

Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre told the Leveson Inquiry on 6 February:

I'm very proud of the Mail Online...it's evolving and clearly everything can improve, but I think to come from a cold start to being the world's number newspaper internet site is an achievement that British journalism should be proud of.

Yesterday, at 12:56pm, Carol Vorderman tweeted:

Someone at Mail HQ clearly thought this was a great story, and within six hours, an article appeared under the byline of Daily Mail Reporter:

You'll be all at sea, Carol! Vorderman unveils her new yacht... although it's hardly the right weather for sailing

She's made a name for herself as a TV star with plenty of brains behind her beauty.

But perhaps Carol Vorderman wasn't quite with it when she decided to rent a huge yacht.

The 51-year-old posted a picture of the large vessel to her Twitter page, proudly announcing it was moored at the Bristol docks.

However, it's hardly the weather for a sun-drenched cruise across the bay.

In fact, it's pretty miserable across the British Isles with rain and grey skies dominating this weekend.

That won't put Carol off though, the former Countdown presenter always seem to be of a sunny disposition.

In those six hours, it appears Daily Mail Reporter didn't do any research about this yacht. If they had, they might have found local news reports about its arrival in Bristol on 13 March, and that it is set to be delivered to its new owner in the Mediterranean later this week. It's not being 'hired for the season' by Vorderman or anyone else.

A few hours later, Vorderman tweeted again:

The Mail has a little bit of form on this: it fell for a spoof Steve Jobs twitter account in 2010, and last year used a joke tweet by Jeremy Vine as the basis for a serious article about the BBC attacking Christianity.

Meanwhile, in other Vorderman 'news', the Sun has published the words of Sam Amos, a 'psychic' who has done, err, 'rumpology' readings of Vorderman's bum.

(Hat-tip to James)

UPDATE: MailOnline deleted the article on Monday. 

Dacre, the Mail and cancer

In his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry today, Mail editor Paul Dacre said it was a 'caricature' that his paper wrote lots of stories about things that can give you cancer.

This claim came as he was being asked about the Mail story 'Cancer danger from that night-time trip to the toilet', which was dimissed as an 'eye-catching fabrication' by the University of Leicester, whose research was being reported.

Inevitably, there was a 'x causes cancer' story in the Mail today, based on soon-to-be-aired Government ads on drinking:

It begins:

Just two glasses of wine or two strong pints of beer a day can treble the risk of mouth cancer, ministers warn.

The news that two pints of beer could treble the risk of mouth cancer may come as a surprise to some Mail readers who saw this story two days ago:

This article included the claim that:

We have long been told that a glass of red wine is good for our health, but now an increasing number of clinical studies show that beer can have even greater benefits...

‘It needn’t be an expensive beer – just don’t drink so much you cancel out any of the benefits,’ adds Dr Philliskirk. ‘This means no more than a pint a day for a woman and between one and two pints, depending on the beer’s strength, for a man.’

Dr Philliskirk is, incidentally, from the Institute of Brewing and Distillery:

a members organisation dedicated to the education and training needs of brewers & distillers and those in related industries.

He might just be considered to be someone with an interest in promoting the benefits of alcohol.

But there it is: two pints of beer a day might be good for you or it might increase your risk of mouth cancer, depending on whether you read the Mail on the 4th or the 6th.

Just like last year, indeed, when a glass or two of red wine was reported by the Mail (and Express) to both prevent and increase the risk of breast cancer.

Similarly, the Mail reported that drinking wine with an evening meal was a 'deadly risk' that increases the risk of cancer (29 August 2011) and a good way to be 'free of the ills of oldage', including cancer (7 September 2011).

Dacre told the Inquiry:

I categorically dispute that we adopt an irresponsible stance on medical stories.

'Corrections must be given more prominence'

On 18 July 2011, Paul Dacre told a committee of MPs:

The PCC already has the right to place a correction or adjudication in a paper. Where it goes in the paper has to be agreed by the director of the Press Complaints Commission. It is one of the great myths of our time that newspapers somehow bury these things at the back of the book, as 80% of the corrections carried by newspapers are either on the same page as the original offending article or before that page.

Yet last week, when giving a speech at a public seminar organised by the Leveson Inquiry, Dacre said:

I believe corrections must be given more prominence. As from next week, the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and Metro will introduce a "Corrections and Clarifications" column on page two of these papers.

If he now believes corrections 'must be given' more prominence, why did he claim only a few months ago it was 'one of the biggest myths of all time' that they are buried?

The decision to introduce these columns is to be welcomed although, as Steve Baxter pointed out, Dacre has been editor of the Daily Mail since 1992. Why has it taken so long?

But it's better late than never and it is quite a concession - especially given the start of Dacre's speech was given over the attacking the 'current furore over the press'. Yet this 'current furore' appears to have led Dacre to realise a corrections column would be a good idea.

So, today, the Mail on Sunday's first 'Corrections and clarifications' column was published. Here's the first item:

Last Sunday we said some 3,200 families of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder were believed to have been given cars under the Motability scheme. In fact that total is the combined figure for two categories of recipients of the Higher Mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance and includes other behavioural disorders. Recipients choose whether or not to spend their allowance on a Motability car; generally about 30 per cent do so. Also, we described the qualification for the Lower Mobility component, rather than the Higher Mobility component required to claim a car, for which individuals must be declared virtually unable to walk. 

This article was originally debunked by Full Fact but, as they point out, the original article remains on MailOnline with no correction. The claims were also repeated by Littlejohn in his column on Tuesday. Will the Mail be correcting that too?

The next correction says:

Bath licensee Ashley Van Dyck points out that he did not support police use of an airport-style scanner to check people on a night out for knives and drugs. Our article of September 25 repeated a quote to the BBC by Mr Van Dyck, chairman of Bath Pubwatch, saying only that he welcomed extra police officers being deployed to curb anti-social behaviour.

The original article, again, still remains live and uncorrected.

Next:

On September 18 we published a photograph of Dr Angela Kikugawa, an assistant director at the UK Border Agency, competing at the Civil Service Sports Council Games at Loughborough University. Dr Kikugawa has asked us to clarify that she attended the games at her own expense and did not take part in any of the partying and other activities later in the evening.

This is in response to an article headlined: 'Paid to party on your tax: How civil servants were given time off work for drunken sports day hours after voting for a mass strike'. Again, the correction has not been added to the original story.

And finally, there's this:

Last week we printed the Union Flag incorrectly in a tea towel promotion. The thick white lines of the St Andrew’s Cross should have been above the red St Patrick’s Cross on one side of the flag and below it on the other.

Not something you'd imagine the Mail on Sunday is particularly happy to have got wrong - especially when the Mail has criticised others for the same error before. 

So while the column is a welcome addition, and it's refreshing to see articles corrected within a few weeks, MailOnline should still update the original articles to include the clarification.

Mail clarifies green tax 'suggestion'

Another day, another clarification from the Daily Mail. This time, it's about 'green taxes':

Articles on June 9 reported comments from Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which suggested that ‘green stealth taxes’ are adding 15 to 20 per cent to energy bills.

According to Ofgem, the correct figure for environmental costs in domestic bills is currently no more than 9 per cent. We are happy to clarify this.

Only 'suggested'? Here's how the Mail reported this claim on 9 June:

It says very clearly in the sub-heading that a '£200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bill'.

The front page story was written by David Derbyshire and repeated the claims made by Peiser in an opinion piece which the Mail gave the headline:

Here's Peiser's exact words:

so-called green stealth taxes are already adding 15-20 per cent to the average domestic power bill and even more to business users.

There was an accompanying editorial from the Mail which said:

Yet the scandal is that these secret extras which add 15 to 20 per cent aren’t even itemised on our gas and electricity bills.

The following day, Derbyshire repeated Peiser's claim of 15-20% on a £1,000 bill in another article.

And on 15 June, an article by Lauren Thompson explained how the 'Mail revealed last week' that experts ('such as Peiser') said green taxes added £200 to domestic bills.

As yet, the clarification has not been added to any of these articles online, but as Mail editor Paul Dacre has made clear burying corrections is a 'myth', that surely will happen...

But then, as Dacre said that the claim newspapers bury corrections is:

one of the great myths of our time

you might have thought today's Mail would run this clarification on the front page, where the original claim was made.

It didn't.

The fact-checking website Full Fact looked at Peiser's figures on the day they were reported by the Mail (and others) and cast doubt on their accuracy then. Why didn't the Mail also query his claims?

The page two apologies to Christopher Jefferies

Seven months ago, Christopher Jefferies was subject to these character-assassinating front pages (among many, many others):


Yesterday, eight newspapers - the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Express, Star, Daily Record and Scotsman - agreed to pay Jefferies libel damages and apologise for their coverage.

Yet there is not one word of the apology, or one word about it, on the front page of the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express, Star or Daily Record today. Instead, the apologies are all hidden away on page two. (If anyone has a copy of the Scotsman, please do let me know how they have handled this.)

Although this was resolved legally, rather than through the Press Complaints Commission, the Code of Practice states:

A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.

Given the original offence, it is very hard to see how these apologies can be considered prominent enough.

Here's the Star's apology:

In court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate over- sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.

We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.

The Mail:

Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils.

The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.

* Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports.

The Express:

In court yesterday the Daily Express apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published in the Daily Express on December 31 2010 in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations. It was further suggested that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.

Daily Record:

Yesterday the Daily Record and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.

We also wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past and invaded his tenants' privacy.

We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

At the time of writing, only the Express, Star and Daily Record have a link to the apology on the homepage of their website. MailOnline has not put it on the homepage but half way down their 'news' page - further down than a story about this weekend's weather.

It appears the Mirror, Sun and Scotsman have so far failed to publish their apologies online.

Speaking to a committee of MPs recently, Mail editor Paul Dacre, who is also Chair of the Committee that oversees the Code of Practice, said that the claim newspapers bury corrections is:

one of the great myths of our time.

This from a man whose paper's website was, only a few months ago, routinely placing apologies for British stories in its US section.

Yet if the newspapers fail so miserably to give proper prominence to apologies in a case as serious as this one, Dacre's words should be treated with the disdain they deserve.

UPDATE: The Sun's apology does not appear if you search their website for either Chris or Christopher Jefferies. But it is up there:

The Sun apologised in court yesterday to ex-schoolmaster Christopher Jefferies for false suggestions he might have killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates, acted inappropriately towards pupils in the past, invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have been involved in an unsolved murder in 1974.

We accepted these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies in fact helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages and costs to Mr Jefferies.

The Mirror's apology is also now up:

Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.

The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.

We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

And The Scotsman finally published their apology online on 1 August:

Yesterday The Scotsman and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies was involved in the killing of Joanna Yeates.

We had also wrongly suggested that he had acted in an inappropriate, oversexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded the privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats.

We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies had no involvement in Ms Yeates' killing.

In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

'I do not know whether some of the things Littlejohn writes are honest'

Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre gave evidence to a joint parliamentary committee on the Draft Defamation Bill on 18 July.

He defended the PCC which he praised for its:

increased powers and strength...which no one will admit to in this febrile climate.

He attacked the BBC for:

very light-touch regulation. It almost regulates itself.

This despite the fact that Ofcom also regulates the BBC and has fined them for transgressions - a sanction Dacre will never accept for newspapers.

On front page apologies Dacre said:

I suppose we are now leading to the ultimate sanction of a front-page apology. Again, I think that would be the court taking away the editor’s right to edit and the thin end of all kinds of undesirable wedges. It is perhaps a technical point, but a newspaper’s front page needs to sell itself. A newspaper has to be viable. If it does not sell itself, no one will read the correction inside. Finally—this is slightly contradictory—in truly heinous offences, a front page can and should be considered by the editor. There are quite a few precedents for that but I should not want the court to have the right to insist on it.

The committee also mentioned the wording of the defence of 'fair comment' and asked whether 'honest opinion' might be more appropriate. Dacre said:

Yes, I suppose “honest” is slightly better, although I prefer “free opinion” for the life of me. As long as it does not inflame a situation, is not racist and does not defame someone, the freer it is the better. Certainly, thinking about some of the things that Mr Littlejohn writes in my paper, I do not know whether they are honest but they certainly get people talking.

Churnalism to sell holidays, cheese, toothpaste, sandwiches...

As well as helping to uncover the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World, Nick Davies also brought 'churnalism' to people's attention. Davies wrote in the Press Gazette in 2008:

Where once we were active gatherers of news, we have become passive processors of second-hand material generated by the booming PR industry and a handful of wire agencies, most of which flows into our stories without being properly checked. The relentless impact of commercialisation has seen our journalism reduced to mere churnalism...

All local and regional media outlets in Britain - print and broadcast - have been swamped by a tide of churnalism. The scale and quality of coverage has been swept away. But the tide has not stopped in the provinces. The big national outlets can still support some real journalism, but here too, churnalism has swept through newsrooms.

Despite Mail editor Paul Dacre telling a parliamentary Select Committee that he 'refutes' the charge of churnalism at his paper, it and others still rely on PR to fill their pages. Flick through any newspaper on any day and you will usually find at least one story based on 'surveys' designed to get a company's name in the paper. Here are a few recent examples:

* Today, the Mail and Express are reporting that women pack too many items when they go away on holiday.

And which company conducted the survey of 2,000 women and would be interested in reminding people what essentials they need for their holidays?

Go Compare Travel insurance.

* Yesterday, the Mail and the Star reported that half our smiles are fake.

And which company conducted the survey of 3,000 people and would be interested in reminding people about their smiles?

'Toothpaste maker Biorepair'.

* On 6 July, the Express reported that 'one in seven Britons had laughed at a funeral'.

And which company conducted the survey of 2,000 people and would have an interest in reminding people about laughing?

'The Laughing Cow cheese company'.

* Also on 6 July, the Mail reported that people 'don't trust' dishwashers but found washing up by hand 'therapeutic'.

And which company conducted the survey of 3,000 people and would have an interest in reminding people about cleaning their home?

Vileda ('leaders in cleaning equipment').

* On 4 July, the Mail ran the headline 'Early lunch? The midday break is now a snack at 11am for workers'.

And which company conducted the survey of 2,000 people and would have an interest in reminding people about food at lunch time?

'Sandwich chain Subway'.

* On 29 June, the Mail ran the headline 'The end of the postcard: Facebook and texts mean 4 in 10 British holidaymakers no longer send notes to loved-ones'. The Express carried the same story, but not until 4 July.

And which company conducted the survey of 2,000 people and would have an interest in reminding people about their holidays?

'Online travel firm ebookers'.

* Also on 4 July, the Express reported that 'Women are so nifty in their fifties'.

And which company conducted the survey of 2,000 people and would have an interest in telling people how great life is after someone reaches 50?

Yours - the magazine for over 50s.

* On 10 June, the Mirror and the Express both reported that that day was the 'top day for sickies' as it was 'one of the busiest days for booking summer holidays'.

And which company conducted the survey and would have an interest in reminding people about booking a break?

'Travel website laterooms.com'.

* On 29 June, the Daily Mail reported that despite iPads, DVDs and computers, listening to the radio made people happiest.

And which company conducted the survey of 1,000 people and would have an interest in reminding people about how much people enjoy listening to the radio?

The Radio Advertising Bureau ('our aim is to encourage advertisers and agencies to consider radio more often as part of their communications solutions').

And on and on it goes...

Chris Atkins showed in February how easy it is for 'churnalism' to slip into the papers unchecked when several stories he had invented were regurgitated without question.

Because, as Davies reported in Flat Earth News:

80 per cent of [Fleet Street's news] is wholly, mainly or partially made up of second-hand material from PR and PA.

But that was one bit of research that many newspapers didn't want to report.

The 'toothless' regulator

In 2007, the broadcast regulator Ofcom fined GMTV £2m for 'widespread and systematic deception' in the way they ran premium rate phone-in competitions.

The same year, Ofcom fined Channel 4 £1.5m for similar breaches of the Code.

And in 2009, they fined the BBC £150,000 for the infamous Sachsgate phone calls.

Along with fines, Ofcom can also revoke licences - in November 2010, they did just that for four adult channels that were ''no longer fit and proper' to remain on air, following 'serious and repeated' breaches of Ofcom's broadcasting code'.

The Mail, however, is still smarting from the fact Ofcom didn't rule the way it wanted over The X Factor final, and those performances from Christina Aguilera and Rihanna that were so scandalous, the Mail published dozens of photos and the videos to show how appalled they were.

So today, in its editorial, it dismisses Ofcom as 'pathetic' and 'toothless' and says it has 'contemptibly failed to take any meaningful action'.

Indeed, it's so 'toothless' that it once fined the Daily Mail and General Trust £225,000 for a breach of its public service broadcasting licence for Teletext.

Compare that to, say, the Press Complaints Commission. It has no power to fine newspapers. It will do absolutely nothing about the Daily Star saying Simon Cowell 'is dead' in a front page headline. It even lets the Mail get away with burying corrections, so that clarifications for British stories are hidden in the US section of the Mail's website.

So what does Mail editor Paul Dacre have to say about the PCC?

the PCC has over the years been a great success story.

But could Dacre point to all those occasions when the PCC has taken 'meaningful action' against the Mail? Or indeed against any other paper?

Is it Ofcom or the PCC that is really a 'toothless' regulator?

Mail continues to prove 'burying corrections' is no myth

The PCC has just published details of another apology by the Mail, which was published on 3 May 2011:

A report carried online on 25 March (Fisherman husband of Tory MP drowns after becoming tangled up in his own net) stated that it was believed that Neil Murray, husband of East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray, had drowned after falling overboard. We now understand that this was incorrect, and that Mr Murray was found on board his vessel. We are sorry for the error.

Once again, the Mail has placed this apology in the US section of its website. This is (at least) the fourth time this has happened during May, although one of these has since been moved to a more appropriate place.

It was only on 2 February 2011 that the PCC issued new guidance on online prominence. It states:

editors should give consideration to appropriate placement on the relevant section where the original article appeared (such as the "news" or "showbusiness" section, for example).

And on 2 December 2010, the Editor's Code of Practice Committee, which oversees the Code policed by the PCC, announced a rule change on corrections that was:

designed to help kill the myth that newspapers and magazines routinely bury corrections.

If that is a 'myth', why has the Mail website been routinely placing corrections to British stories in the US section of its website?

The Chair of the Code of Practice Committee is Paul Dacre.

The editor-in-chief of the Mail is Paul Dacre.

If any publication should be taking the lead in making sure retractions are not buried, shouldn't it be the Mail?

Churnalism to sell diet food

The Mirror says:


The Express says:


Meanwhile, the Mail says:


Each very similar article reveals the same results of the same 'survey' in much the same language. The Mail explains:

a survey has revealed that women don't think it is acceptable to wear bikinis on the beach once they reach 47...

the survey also revealed that women believe - perhaps a little unfairly - that miniskirts are a 'no-no' on anyone aged 35 or more and that high heels should not be worn by anyone over 51.

All three also use the same quotes from Caron Leckie, a representative of the organisation that commissioned the poll:

'It's up to individuals to choose when they should stop wearing certain items...it's very much personal choice.'

Right - so the point of this survey is what, exactly?

But then she adds:

'Saying that, everyone wants to look the best they can and now is the prime time to get in shape for summer....the secret to looking good is healthy eating'

And with that, the point of all this becomes clear. The organisation that commissioned the poll is in the diet food business. It explains:

We make dieting easy, we measure, count calories, cook, pack, ship and deliver delicous diet food straight to your door.

No wonder it wants to put 'getting in shape' and 'healthy eating' into people's minds.

So they produce some survey results, send out a press release that's copy-and-pasted into several newspapers - with the Mirror and Express generously putting it on their front pages - and then watch as their business gets lots of free publicity. It's dismal, but all too common.

Oh, and wasn't it Mail editor Paul Dacre who once told parliament his paper was 'not guilty' of churnalism?

Churnalism to sell an app

Last week, we had the annual trotting out of the 'Blue Monday' myth - supposedly the most depressing day of the year. It has rightly been dismissed as 'churnalism' and 'bullshit' by Ben Goldacre:

The "most depressing day of the year" began life as a "wacky academic" equation story. This is the kind of thing PR companies offer as "advertising equivalent exposure" for companies who want their brand in the papers.

The equation stunt was not the work of an academic, it was paid for by Sky Travel, and Blue Monday comes just after your first pay cheque arrives, the perfect time to book a holiday.

Well, according to several suspiciously similar stories in the papers today, then 10am on Tuesday is the most stressful time of the week. Here's the Mirror:

And the Mail:

And the Telegraph:


And the Express:


Every article contains the same 'facts' from what they all call 'research'. They all contain the same quotes from the same spokesman and much the same text in between. For example, here's the Mail:

The study of office workers aged between 18 and 45 quizzed respondents on their level of stress throughout the typical working week.

It found a quarter regularly feel stressed at work and for three quarters of workers they regularly come to the end of their tether by 11.16am each day. But one in five find it gets too much before nine o'clock.

Four in ten blamed heavy workloads and a third said dealing with difficult clients or customers left them feeling frazzled.

Yet three in ten admitted it was their boss which caused them tension in the office and one in six blamed their colleagues for not listening to their cries for help.

And the Telegraph:

The study of office workers aged between 18 and 45 quizzed respondents on their level of stress throughout the typical working week.

It found a quarter regularly feel stressed at work and for three quarters of workers they regularly come to the end of their tether by 11.16am each day. But one in five find it gets too much before nine o'clock.

Four in ten blamed heavy workloads and a third said dealing with difficult clients or customers left them feeling frazzled.

Yet three in ten admitted it was their boss which caused them tension in the office and one in six blamed their colleagues for not listening to their cries for help.

Yes, they are identical.

It is revealed, somewhat inevitably, that this 'research' is from a recruitment agency. They wouldn't have an interest in getting people thinking about their 'stressful' jobs, would they?

Yet it is only the Express, in its final sentence, that truly gives the game away:

[The agency] has just launched a smartphone app designed to take the stress out of finding a new job.

So a dubious bit of 'research' sent out to journalists in a press release in order to sell a smartphone app gets the classic 'churnalism' treatment.

Mail plugs weight loss product

A ridiculous Mail headline for a ridiculous article:


Mail hack Paul Sims explains:

There are only two days to go before the biggest feast of the year. But for those who cannot help but ask for seconds of the Christmas turkey this might be enough to put you off.

According to a survey published yesterday partners who gain just 8lbs over the festive period could be single before the dawn of the New Year.

It seems adding just half a stone is enough for their partners to simply look elsewhere.

The 'survey' goes on to 'reveal' that:

42 per cent of men interviewed said they would be less attracted to their girlfriend if they gained half a stone in weight. And five per cent even said they would consider ending the relationship altogether.

Which doesn't really back up the headline that eyes definitely 'will' wander. But, frankly, analysing the 'results' of the 'survey' are to give it more credibility than it deserves. Why?

Because, as the Mail goes on to reveal, it was:

carried out by weight loss aid SlimWeight Patch.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest in getting people to think about their weight, would they?

The Mail have done their PR job for them. The 'article' ends with eight paragraphs of (unchallenged) quotes from a spokesman for the product. It looks suspiciously like a cut-and-paste job from a press release.

This dismal bit of 'churnalism' appeared on page 20 of today's print edition. It's a lazy puff piece which names the product three times and, online, includes a handy hyperlink to the website which sells the stuff:


Mail editor Paul Dacre once told a parliamentary select committee that he 'refutes' the charge that his paper does churnalism. So how would he explain this?

(Anton has also blogged about the Mail's article)

'I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC'

There is another highly recommended article on Martin Robbins' Lay Scientist blog today.

This one is written by Richard Wilson and it explains his seven-month battle to get the Daily Mail to correct an article - 'The Great Asbestos Hysteria' - by Christopher Booker.

The Mail eventually published this clarification but the wording suggests they substantially stand by the original piece.

But Wilson's reflections on the process of dealing with the PCC (and, indeed, the Mail) are worth noting:

The newspaper's claim that an HSE study had found the dangers of white asbestos cement to be "insignificant" was also easy to disprove: Booker had made the self-same claim in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2008, and been rebutted in detail by the HSE.

Neither was it hard to show that the Mail had got it wrong in claiming that "it is virtually impossible to extract even a single dangerous fibre" from white asbestos cement. An HSE lab report from 2007 notes that "the claim that respirable airborne chrysotile fibres are not able to be released from asbestos cement products was refuted by the individual airborne fibres sampled during the breaking of the test sample with a hammer".

In theory, this should have been the end of the matter. According to the PCC's code, "a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence". What happened instead, in my view, speaks volumes both about the character of the Daily Mail, and the credibility of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory body.

After a delay of several weeks, the PCC forwarded me a dismissive response from the Daily Mail's executive managing editor, Robin Esser. While acknowledging some minor errors, Esser insisted that the disputed HSE study did indeed back up Booker's views on asbestos. The fact that the HSE had put out a statement explicitly rebutting this merely proved that "those responsible for HSE press releases are similarly unable to grasp the significance of findings published by their own statisticians". For good measure, Esser accused me (falsely, just in case you're wondering) of being "allied to a well-organised and well-funded commercial lobby", who "stand to benefit financially" from the "anti-asbestos campaign".

Rather than take ownership of the process, assess the various bits of evidence and come to a judgement, the PCC instead asked me to go through this new set of claims and produce a further response. Here I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC. If a newspaper digs in its heels and simply denies all the evidence that's been presented, there doesn't seem to be much that the PCC can do except bat the issue back to the complainant.

And having been through this process, what of the PCC's 'fast, free and fair' slogan?

More time-consuming exchanges followed, with long gaps in between, while we awaited a response from the Daily Mail. In the end we won, sort of. The newspaper agreed to make some amendments to the text of the article, publish a short correction, and write a private apology to Michael Lees over Booker's comments about his wife. But to get even this far has taken seven months, and a substantial time investment, while the Daily Mail seems to have been able to drag the process out with impunity. "Free", perhaps – but hardly "fast", or "fair".

When someone complained about Richard Littlejohn's claim that most robberies in the UK were committed by Eastern Europeans, the Mail took nearly six weeks to reply to the PCC. In total, it took the paper two months to correct a claim that was obviously false.

Here's what Mail Editor Paul Dacre said in July, when he argued that fines for serious breaches of the Editor's Code shouldn't be introduced:

It cannot be said too often that the imposition of sizable fines would result in complainants and particularly the press having to use lawyers to defend their interests - signalling the death of a FREE fast system of complaints adjudication.

If it is taking seven months to resolve a complaint, this system is neither fast nor alive and well.