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'.

Putting upskirt photos on the front page, with the Daily Star

On 29 May, Richard Desmond's Daily Star Sunday took a stand against a 'sick' German newspaper that had published upskirt shots of Pippa Middleton:


'Pippa pervs' the front page roared as it criticised an:

undie-Hans attack by a kinky German snapper.

And here's Saturday's Daily Star front page:

Daily Star: 'shamelessly looking to cash in'

From 6 June to today, the Daily Star has put the word 'Giggs' in its main front page headline every single day (this excludes the Daily Star Sunday, which has stuck with Pippa Middleton for the last two weeks). The first twelve of these front pages are available on the Media Blog.

Yet on 17 June - the 11th day - the paper's editorial was criticising the people involved in this tawdry story for forgetting there are:

little children at the centre of this scandal.

And for:

shamelessly looking to cash in

Indeed.

Today, the 14th front page claims that 'Sex addict Giggs gets therapy':

It's another story that the Star calls an 'exclusive' and states that Giggs is in some kind of therapy. Is he?

Here's how Jerry Lawton begins his article:

Manchester United have signed up God to keep bedhopping stars like Ryan Giggs on the straight and narrow.

God?

Club chaplain Rev John Boyers revealed his job now involves teaching players about “sexual ethics”. The morality lessons come after the club has been rocked by a series of sex scandals...

Now club bosses want Rev Boyers to lecture rising stars on sexual morality in a bid to stop future scandals.

So Giggs isn't actually 'getting therapy'. The Star's 'exclusive' is that Manchester United FC has a chaplain. But this isn't really an 'exclusive', or even news, as Boyers has been doing that job since 1992.

But the Star tries to pretend there's something new here. Lawton says Boyers is 'now' teaching about 'sexual ethics' 'after' recent 'sex scandals' - as if this is somehow linked to the Giggs case.

It isn't.

He quotes Boyers saying:

“I do some work with the academy teaching them life skills – situations in life they may encounter and how they might cope.

“Things like friendship, sexual ethics, bereavement, bullying and prejudice, racism. I try to help them prepare for adult life.

But compare that to something Boyers wrote in a June 2010 article called 'Prayers for the players' (pdf):

I do some educational work with younger academy players. SCORE has some ‘Life-skills’ teaching material which looks at issues such as friendships, bereavement, bullying, sexual ethics, decision making, prejudice, privilege and responsibility etc.

Lawton goes on to quote Boyers saying:

“I also do general pastoral support and spiritual support work right across the club...

“We’ve had many situations in football ranging from drugs scandals to financial scandals and behavioural scandals which show there is real worth in having a chaplaincy.’’

And compare that to a quote from Boyers found in an Independent article from November 1995:

"Clubs are seeing the value of the chaplaincy as a pastoral and spiritual safety net...

"We've had many situations in football ranging from drugs scandals to financial scandals and behavioural scandals which show there is real worth in having a chaplaincy."

It could be the Boyers has said the same things then and now. But it appears that Lawton is copying previous statements from Boyers that he's found on the internet and is making them out to be both new and related to Giggs.

Lawton adds:

The minister will not discuss individual cases.

Which sounds a bit like the Independent's:

Rev Boyers won't discuss individual cases...

Lawton then relies on the anonymous sources he's so fond of using, claiming:

But club sources say Giggs has come under his wing during his 21-year career with Manchester United.

“I guess some people heed advice more than others,’’ the source said.

“Rev John is a highly regarded member of the team and does his best to help set our young players along the right path. Handling fame and all that goes with it is not easy.’’

Note that the 'club source' doesn't actual back up the contention made in the sentence before it.

So the story is nonsense, dubiously assembled and almost completely fictitious.

And so have most of the Star's front pages 'stories' about Giggs over the last few weeks, including the 'sexy girlie romp' that turned out to be a trip to an estate agent and the joke that was treated as fact. And many of them carry the byline of Jerry Lawton, the man behind the infamous Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury article.

For example, yesterday's front page stated:


The 'lover' in question is not Imogen Thomas, who is pictured in her underwear, but Giggs' sister-in-law Natasha. 'Sex romp revenge' sounds like a set of random Daily Star buzzwords, thrown together to sell papers. It's also an 'exclusive'. It says on the front page:

Ryan Giggs's sister-in-law lover will romp with EIGHT celebrity hunks to make the footie love cheat jealous.

This shows, of course, that the Star is deeply concerned about the:

little children at the centre of this scandal.

Lawton's article goes on to reveal:

Natasha, 28, has revealed to Facebook pals the names of eight stars she drools over.

So: woman tells friends that she fancies some celebs. It's not quite the same as saying she 'will romp' with them all in some 'sex revenge plot'.

Saturday's front page story claimed:


'I dressed a French maid', plus the word 'exclusive' and the photo all make it appear as if this was an interview, or at least an actual statement from a woman involved (Natasha, again).

The article by Lawton and Aaron Tinney began:

Ryan Giggs liked his sister-in-law lover to dress up as a French maid.

The Star's 'proof' for this claim:

Naughty Natasha, 28, donned a pink frilly micro-skirt and black G-string with white spots to thrill him.

And she was so proud of her cheeky look she showed it off on her Facebook site. Although her snap showed only her bottom she assured friends it was hers.

Pals said the fantastic figure she reveals in the photo explains why married Manchester United legend Ryan, 37, was tempted to play away from home for eight years.

So: woman posts picture of her bum on Facebook. Neither the anonymous pal who is quoted nor anyone else says anything about dressing as a French maid - except Lawton.

The day before, the paper was claiming 'another great Daily Star exclusive':


Once again, the headline makes it sound as if this is something that has actually been said. In this case, by Kym Marsh. 'Giggs bedded babe in my home'? Well, here's Lawton again:

Coronation Street beauty Kym Marsh fears Ryan Giggs romped in her bedroom with his sister-in-law... Kym, 35, and partner Jamie Lomas, 31...believe the lovers got it on in their posh pad.

So no actual proof then? And did Marsh actually say that?

One of Kym’s pals told the Daily Star: “Kym believes they could have been using her bedroom for their affair."

Ah, of course - another anonymous pal, who reveals that someone thinks something might have happened in their house before they moved in but since they weren't there don't really have any idea whether it did. Or not.

That's 'another great Daily Star exclusive'.

The day before that, the Star came up with this 'exclusive':


A 'baby bump'. 'Who's the daddy'? Here's Jerry 'the Pulitzer's coming soon' Lawton again:

Ryan Giggs was in shock last night after his sister-in-law lover flew home proudly sporting a mummy tummy.

Since Giggs isn't quoted, there's no way of knowing if he's 'shocked' or not. That's assuming she's even pregnant:

Natasha Giggs, 28, sparked speculation she might be pregnant as she jetted back to Britain looking rounder than normal.

Since she's only been in the public eye a few weeks, it's hard to know how the paper can claim to know what her 'normal' shape is.

But 'sparked speculation she might be pregnant'? That's a bit different to a definite 'baby bump'. Who was speculating?

One onlooker said: “The terminal was buzzing with talk that Natasha is pregnant again. She might just have been comfort-eating but if she is expecting, it will be yet another nightmare for Giggsy.”

So the speculation is from the all-seeing anonymous 'onlooker' who may or may not be someone in the Daily Star 'newsroom'.

The Mail website carried the same photos of Natasha Giggs at the airport. They didn't mention any 'speculation' and their pictures don't really show any noticeable 'baby bump'. But claiming someone is pregnant when they aren't is something the Star has done several times before.

Despite churning out this inaccurate, misleading, utterly tedious drivel day after day, the Daily Star still manages to be the fourth best-selling daily newspaper in the UK. But is the 15.9% fall in sales between April 2010 and April 2011 a sign that their readers are getting tired of being treated like fools?

Star calls 'visit to estate agent' a 'sexy girlie romp'

Today's Daily Star front page says:


That's 'Ryan Giggs: Imogen's £1m babe spree - Sexy girlie romp for lover'. Got that?

As The Media Blog commented last night, it's hard to know what this actually means as it's 'just a series of tabloid buzz words'. (In response, one person suggested Thomas had bought £1m-worth of talking pigs...)

Here's Aaron Tinney's article:

Sex-gag beauty Imogen Thomas is looking like a million bucks.

Ex-Big Brother babe Imogen Thomas has shot into a different league since the Ryan Giggs storm erupted.

OK...but what's the story?

And she showed off her latest bling yesterday as she shopped around for a new pad in an area where flats start at nearly £1million.

The glamour girl spent the day draped in designer clobber worth thousands as she nipped around in a sleek Mercedes costing over £32,000.

She drove the silver SLK 200 to Greene & Co, one of London’s poshest estate agents.

The office is in Notting Hill where a two-bed apartment will set you back at least £900,000.

The Star labels this an 'exclusive' and said this happened 'yesterday'. Which is odd, considering the Mail website published the photos they had bought from two different picture agencies of Thomas leaving Greene & Co on Monday night.

The Mail claimed two-bedroom flats there will cost £884,000. The Star's article says £900,000. The front page then rounds it up to £1m.

The Star goes on to explain more of Thomas' fascinating exploits on Monday:

Then it was back to her North London pad, where she changed into another outfit with Christian Louboutin heels worth around £700 before heading out again in the Merc.

Hold the front page for 'woman goes out, goes home, goes out again'.

These pictures were published by the Mail yesterday. Yet the Star goes on to quote an anonymous 'onlooker':

One onlooker said: “She looked exactly like a WAG with the shades, crocodile bag and fancy shoes.

“But she gets to live a WAG lifestyle without the bother of being married to a footballer.

“She looks like she’s got it made.”

Given the Star have taken the whole story from articles on the Mail website, how can they have interviewed this 'onlooker'? Or is this onlooker someone in the Star's newsroom?

But what about that front page headline? 'Imogen's £1m babe spree' means 'Imogen might be looking to buy a flat worth less than £1m'.

And 'sexy girlie romp' - according to the Star - means 'visited an estate agent'.

Once again, the Star uses totally misleading front page headlines to sell papers.

Star turns joke into front page 'exclusive'

Today's Daily Star front page lead claims to be another 'exclusive':


It's a ridiculous, completely misleading headline, designed to sell papers using sex and titillation. The article was written by Jerry 'GTA: Rothbury' Lawton and it is yet another 'story' based on what someone has posted on Twitter.

But here's what Imogen Thomas actually posted on Twitter two days ago (that's some 'exclusive'):

(SSEA refers to Swansea, the football team recently promoted to the Premier League)

So, not what the front page claims at all. Instead, a jokey remark on Twitter is deliberately misrepresented as it is splashed all over the front page of the fourth best-selling daily paper in the country.

(Hat-tip to Jonathan)

No escape

The Mail website asks:


'TOWIE' refers to The Only Way Is Essex, a 'constructed reality' show that is broadcast on ITV2. In the week ending 8 May, BARB records viewing figures of 1.5m - the second most-watched programme on the channel.

Therefore, it should be fairly easy to 'escape' from the programme.

But there seems to be little escape from 'news' about the cast members of TOWIE if you ever browse the Mail website. On 24 May (at around 8pm) there were six articles about the show on the homepage.

Indeed, since the 23 May, the Mail website has published all this:


And what fascinating stuff it is, too.

Even by the usual standards of MailOnline chief Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke, 22 articles in just over four days seems a little over-the-top.

But the fact that the cast are currently on holiday in Marbella means the Mail can publish even more pictures of young bikini-clad women on their website.

Of course, at times the Mail pretends to be appalled by the show. It pretends to ask, with a sigh, 'is there no escape?' while also 'reporting' on every bikini change. After it won the Audience Award Bafta earlier this week, Claudia Connell lamented:

watching shallow, vain, dim people being shallow, vain and dim is only entertaining for a few minutes. And not in a ‘so bad it’s good’ kind of way.

Then she added:

TOWIE owes its success to a youth audience, a youth vote and incredibly good PR that ensures that the Day-Glo cast are never out of the headlines, whether they’re falling drunkenly out of nightclubs or making bitchy comments about one another in interviews.

'Never out of the headlines'.

Quite.

The boundaries of decency

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled that the latest advertising campaign by fashion outlet Jack Wills breached their Code by being too 'provocative' and so should not appear again in its current form.

The Mail was, of course, outraged:

...the latest marketing campaign by the label, which specialises in expensive casual fashion, has fallen foul of advertising rules after pushing the boundaries of decency too far.

'Pushing the boundaries of decency too far'. So the Mail wouldn't want to push those boundaries with some leering description of those adverts. Would it?:

The first shows a young woman wearing a short skirt lifted to show her buttocks and the lower section of her knickers. The second shows a group beginning to undress on a beach. One of the men is removing one of the women’s tops. The third shows the group wearing only their underwear.

The fourth advert caused the most concern. It shows a young man and a young woman embracing and kissing. The man is shirtless and the woman wearing only knickers. The side of her breast is clearly visible.

Phwoar, eh? Still, considering the Mail's concern about how this brand is 'selling clothes to your children' at least it wouldn't want to plaster some of the 'boundary pushing' images all over its website, where children might see them, would it?


Oh.

Mail's X Factor hypocrisy

During last Saturday's edition of The X Factor, the 'racy' performances of Rihanna and Christina Aguilera caused much comment.

Jonathan from No Sleep Til Brooklands tweeted:


And he was nearly right. The next day the Mail's 'outraged' article included 13 pictures. And two videos.

'Put your clothes on - it's a family show!' screamed the headline on the website of a publication that would no doubt call itself a 'family newspaper'.

And you can almost hear Chris Johnson salivating as you read his article:

Aguilera wore an very low-cut black dress as she cavorted with an army of lingerie-clad dancers while Rihanna thrust her way through her solo performance in pants and strapless bra.

And the Mail doesn't want anyone to miss out on any of these 'extremely provocative' routines, telling readers that they can 'scroll down to see video of the performances':


Jan Moir also complained about the 'sex-crazed nymphs before the watershed' so the Mail used three more pictures to illustrate her article.

It has been reported that there have been around 2,000 complaints about the programme and so the Mail had an excuse to write about it again. Not that they needed an excuse - on Monday night, the Mail's homepage contained eleven different 'stories' about The X Factor.

But they put the fury/outrage/storm article on the front page:


The continuation on pages six and seven contained several more pictures of the most provocative poses.

But it seems the paper was aware of the accusation of double-standards in pretending to be outraged while showing so many photos and videos.

So it went with the quite incredible headline:

"We apologise to readers but you have to see these pictures to understand the fury they've stirred"

Online, there was no 'scroll down for more leering' - instead, they went with entirely unconvincing:




Yes, that's the only reason they've been published. And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

If the Mail website wasn't continually filling its pages with pictures of famous women in lingerie or bikinis, low cut tops or short skirts then the claim they are publishing these photos reluctantly might be vaguely credible.

But that their first article on this 'sleaze storm' included thirteen pictures and two videos proves they relish it and know it helps them have such a 'popular' website. To try to pretend they are aghast at such stuff is rank hypocrisy.

(While writing the above, the Guardian's Media Monkey published a similar, albeit less rambling, article on the same point)

Here we go again...

I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2010):



















I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2009):















I'm A Celebrity. Steamy romps. Girl-on-girl. Too hot for TV (2008):

Shocking. Look!

The Mail website is trying to act shocked over a new perfume advert starring Christina Aguilera:


Over the top. Pushing the boundaries of deceny. Soft-porn style:

It's supposed to be an advertisement for her new fragrance Royal Desire.

But the commercial for Christina Aguilera's latest perfume looks more like a low budget soft-porn film as the newly-single pop star shows off her curvaceous figure.

Showcasing her ample cleavage in a very low cut dress and writhing in a chair in ecstasy as she sprays the perfume across her chest, the singer's ad may be a bit too risque for her younger fans.

But it's not too risque for her, ahem, older fans working at the Mail.

The accompanying article - little more than free publicity for the scent - contains no news content but does include six stills from the sixteen-second advert and, at the end, they even embed the not-at-all boundary-pushing video:


Mary in Belfast sums up the Mail's over-reaction perfectly:


(Hat-tip Press Not Sorry)

The Mail website and 'sleazy pics'

The Mail's celebrity-and-sex-obsessed website is currently running this story:


The Daily Mail Reporter article begins:

Courtney Love has always been provocative but she has taken it too far by posting pictures of herself half naked on Twitter.

The shocking photos show the 46-year-old singer posing in just underwear with her hands covering her breasts.

In another photo she wears tights and knickers but no skirt as she bends over near a mirror.

This is followed by the two 'shocking', 'sleazy' pics in question. Just so you can see for yourself how she has 'taken it too far'. Sigh.

However, the Mail has managed to squeeze yet another story from a photo that someone famous has posted on Twitter, and have tried (but failed) to take the moral high ground over a so-called 'sleazy' pic that they are only too happy to publish.

'Girth'

Here's the latest article from 'Daily Mail Reporter' pointing out some totally imagined flaw in a celeb:


It says:

It could well be a trick of the light, combined with an unflattering outfit choice.

But the usually immaculate Katy Perry was looking a little curvier than usual during a concert in Budapest, Hungary, last night.

The 25-year-old star took to the stage in a skin-tight silver rubber dress, which clung in all the wrong place.

With the material buckling around the waist, the figure-hugging design even gave the impression of a protruding belly.

Usually Katy looks a million dollars, but apparently even she has her off days.

Girth. Protruding belly. Off day.

Here's the picture the Mail uses as 'evidence':


'Girth' indeed. Another side-on pic shows absolutely no evidence of a 'protruding belly' (not that it would matter if it did).

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the people leaving comments are scathing of the Mail's irresponsible line:


(Angry Mob has posted on a similar Mail article, about Pierce Brosnan's 'burgeoning belly'.)

UPDATE: Twelve hours after publication, and following well over 200 extremely critical comments, the words 'protruding belly' have been removed from the article. It was this:

But is now this:


* On a similar theme, it's well worth reading Anton Vowl's post from last week called The Mail, Laura Robson and Cher Lloyd.

The Mail and upskirts

Today, the Daily Mail was tut-tutting at allegations Jon Venables had been involved in taking 'upskirt' pictures on his mobile phone:


Yet for most of today, one of the Mail's leading 'showbiz' stories has been this:


The Mail says in the Venables piece:

The case was dropped due to insufficient evidence, but officers found a folder called 'Up Skirts' on his computer - containing 1,200 images.

How many pictures are in the Mail's 'Up Skirts' folder?

Mail attacks BBC for 'voyeuristic' Wimbledon coverage

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

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



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

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

Words fail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the tabloids enjoy Wimbledon

Isn't it pleasing to see how the tabloids are taking the female tennis players at Wimbledon seriously


as sportswomen and athletes?


It certainly makes a change


from them using a tennis tournament


as an excuse to publish lots


of gratuitous upskirt pictures.


Oh.