Sun not so outraged at naughty stuff on the net

Remember how The Sun was warning yesterday that kids are apparently finding porn so easy to access and how porn was becoming normalised? Well, at least it hasn't got to the stage where a youngster could pick up a daily newspaper and find pictures of, and interviews with, pornstars.

Oh wait.

Mail watches porn, just to check it doesn't like it

The Star goes into great deal about the film that Jacqui Smith's husband was apparently watching while she was away. It was Raw Meats 3:

A source in the adult movie industry said: “Raw Meats would be amateur girls rather than models and erotic stars. Customers get a kick out of the girl-next-door quality. That’s what Raw Meats is all about.”

The ad, sorry, story, includes a screen-shot of a couple doing their thing, and a pic of Raw Meats 3 with the Televison X logo clearly visible.

Television X is owned by Portland Enterprises. Portland Enterprise and the Star and Express, are owned by Northern and Shell. Northern and Shell is owned by Richard Desmond.

In other Jacqui Smith related porn news, the Daily Mail runs an article by Olivia Lichtenstein in which our intrepid 'reporter' spends a day watching 'several subscription channels' - just so she can tell everyone how 'tawdry' they are. Funnily enough, most people would know that a programme titled 'Teen Fetish Slags' will be tawdry without having to watch it.

But Lichtenstein soldiers on, going into quite unecessary detail:

a man orders two 'take-away bimbos' over the telephone. They arrive, a specifically requested unmatched pair, one blonde, the other brunette, and under his gaze fondle and undress each other like automatons, mouthing filthy words of encouragement and pleading with him to join in. He does.

See what they're doing here? Telling you every juicy detail , just so they can show how 'tawdry' it is. It's a win-win - they can appear appalled while indulging in cheap titillation.

It goes into astonishing detail about the channels, the films, the subscription rates, and includes screenshots of a three women in bed in the bras with two of them kissing, a woman in a shower and the arses of two women in thongs.

But now the - ahem - 'serious' bit. You know, just so it doesn't seem like the Mail have paid someone to watch porn (imagine if Jonathan Ross had been paid to do that...). So:

After two hours of watching these channels, my conclusion was that these 'films' are degrading, exploitative, overlaid with terrible music and, once the shock has worn off, unutterably dull.

Yes, I totally believe that poor innocent Olivia was shocked. But then a few paragraphs later she says:

The problem with pornography, of course, is that those same degrading acts will soon not be degrading enough. The user has constantly to raise the stakes in order to derive the same thrill. It's no wonder that this kind of porn has been compared to crack cocaine. Pornography is addictive and, as with any addiction, the user's need steadily increases and demands ever more shocking, titillating and fetishistic stimuli.

So porn is both unutterably dull and as addictive as cocaine? Is that even possible? No, of course not, but it gives the Mail the opportunity to claim its little bit of the moral high ground, even after all the prurient detail it has just revealed. She goes on:

this mindless filth tarnishes the way in which men perceive women...women remain sex objects whose principle purpose is the sexual gratification of men

The Mail is appalled at the idea of women being treated like sex objects? So on the day before this article, why did it use this pic of Kelly Brook?
No prizes for answering that.

Mail's unsettling interest in a child

There's something not quite right about the Daily Mail calling a 14 year old girl 'stunning'.

Recommended read

Uponnothing has done a brilliant 'audit' on the 2008 columns of Richard Littlejohn, by reading every one of them and showing how pathetically thin and repetitive they all are. And Littlejohn gets £800,00 a year for this crap?

Sun outrage at naughty stuff on the net

Today's Sun contains a story about the 'Pornification of our kids' - a survey that teens believe they should look and act like porn stars as kids find rude stuff on the internet.

The Sun decides to illustrate this story with a photo of a woman wearing black lingerie. Hmm. Even more inappropriate, the pic is cropped at the neck, thus giving the article a nice line in objectifying women.

The Sun homepage also contains a screen shot from the Adult Channel website, a 'meet all the entrants of Miss Scotland' pic fest and 'stories' which involve photos heavily focussed down the tops of Paris Hilton and Heather Mills.

The story has a totally unconvincing line in feigning shock, not least when reporting:

A girl of 14 says: “Guys are often into pornography because the girls have big boobs or they’re skinny or very pretty. You sort of feel you have to look like that to be attractive.”

Anyone remember when a girl who didn't have big boobs and wasn't pretty and wasn't skinny appeared on Page 3? No, me neither.

Extremist literature...

Thanks to Anton at Enemies of Reason for highlighting Sunny Hundal's article on a partial climbdown by Policy Exchange on their Hijacking of British Islam report, which they have removed from their website.

(Reminder that that report's author has form for anti-Islam 'research' which makes the press)

Mail fury as BBC gives acting job to black actor

The Mail has got itself into another BBC (non-) controversy tizzy, with a 'how dare they story?' about the new series of Robin Hood.

Yes, really. They are absolutely appalled that the (very fine) actor David Harewood has been cast as Friar Tuck. Because Friar Tuck has always been fat and hopeless, and this incarnation has him as a martial arts expert.

But mainly they are appalled because David Harewood is black. Or, as one of the commentators has quite unbelievably called him, a 'negro' (thanks Alan, El Paso, Texas).

And casting a black actor appears to symbolic of a 'cancer of Leftist political correctness' and 'typical BBC nonsense' according to just two of the many very angry comments.

The whole story seems to be taking a piece of fictional Saturday night family entertainment far too seriously. They claim the casting has 'sparked fury among professors who believe the portrayal is historically inaccurate'. Fury? Well they quote one professor from Exeter Uni, but she doesn't sound angry at all, just pointing out a black friar would have been very unlikely.

But since when has Robin Hood (the series) meant to be realistic. It's Robin Hood, after all.

News you won't read in the UK papers (yet!)

Hear that? It's the court-ordered silence around the reporting of the case of the 'youngest dad in Britain'. As anyone looking at Google News will know, there have been significant developments about this case today. But I'm not enough of an expert to know what can and can't be said here...

But it does seem ridiculous when American, Australian, Indian papers can report it and they can be easily found online. How does a court order work in the internet age? Because it doesn't seem to at all. (It seems the Mirror did print this story, but have removed it from their website, although it still can be found in a Google search!)

As I mentioned on this blog before, the story didn't feel right from the start and The Sun were ridiculously stupid for running the story in the first place without proper fact-checking. They have been complicit in exploiting this child and that is totally unforgivable. But they've got the most popular website of any newspaper now, so I bet they don't give a toss.

And as for the PCC investigation - what is that going to come up with? Another slap on the wrists for The Sun. Well, that'll learn 'em.

It will be good to look at all those columnists who threw up their hands in horror at the original story and highlight how ridiculous they all sound now.

And of course Max Clifford was involved. I know he is deemed beyond criticism these days because of his work with St Jade of Goody. But serious questions need to be asked about how the newspapers bow and scrape to his every whim.

Two fingers to Express scaremongering

More immigration stories to frighten the narrow-minded in today's papers. It's on the front of the Express and also in the Mail.

One immediate question is - if that is how many have 'poured in', how many of that same group have left? None of the reports bother to say.

Another is a little tidbit mentioned in the Telegraph - that Poles make up the third biggest group of immigrants living in Britain, behind Indians and the Irish. Yet how come we never hear about all the Irish immigrants living here (this relates to a point I made in the surname story a few days ago).

And finally - why do you think the Express has chosen to illustrate today's story with this pic:
They even use a caption that reads: 'Mass immigration is increasing hostility'. Just so you know whose fault it is.

Mail - still hating homosexuals

In what world does a comment like this:

There is no place for sexism, racism or homophobia in this century

get an approval rating of -409?

In the world of the Mail website comments section, of course.

The story is that Peter and Hazelmary Bull, owners of The Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion refused to allow a gay couple (in a civil partnership) to stay in the double room they had booked because they only allow married, heterosexuals to stay in double rooms. This despite the fact they had accepted the booking in the first place and the couple had arrived.

They have now

lodged a county court claim for up to £5,000 in damages alleging 'direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation'.

The hotel website says:

'Here at Chymorvah you will be met by a friendly welcome'.

It fails to add 'but only if you're on of us'.

The Mail story claims the hotel's website also says:

'We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only'.

Although the implication is there, the use of 'prefer' doesn't actually clearly ban gay couples.

In any case, this has now been changed to:

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.

The comment from Mrs Bull is worth noting:

I have had people clearly involved in affairs and under-age people who have tried to book in here for sex, and I have refused them the same as I refused these gentlemen because I won’t be a party to anything which is an affront to my faith under my roof.

Note the seeming equivalence of under-age sex with a gay couple in a civil partnership.

The last word must go to commentator BWJ, who says:

In my view there is too much pandering to this so-called equality lark.

That gets a +546 rating.

Sigh.

Why the silence?

From this week's Private Eye, a story on why nobody in the media reported on a previous Eye story about the non-dom status of Mail owner Lord Rothermere. Here's the follow-up:

THE Eye’s revelation that Britain’s most powerful newspaper owner, Daily Mail and General Trust chairman Lord “Non Dom” Rothermere, saves a fortune by owning his newspaper group through tax havens like Bermuda, has met with deafening silence.

The fairly significant news that a press baron whose papers take a none too indulgent line on foreigners feels a principal allegiance to another country (and France of all places) has merited not a single mention in the press. This is the omerta effect of what the Mail’s most famous editor Sir David English called the “proprietors club”. All agree not to report on the others for fear of mutual destruction.

More alarming, however, is the cover-up at HM Revenue & Customs, where boss Dave Hartnett put pressure on inspectors to drop an investigation into the bizarre arrangement under which English-born Rothermere is considered to be domiciled abroad while lording it over a neo-Palladian castle set in 220 acres of Wiltshire countryside. Hartnett’s intervention countermanded the judgement of investigators, a high-level strategy board and government lawyers that there was an overwhelming case to overturn the viscount’s non-dom status.

Insiders report that a furious Hartnett has instigated an inquiry into how the episode was leaked – but, strangely, no inquiry into how and why he gave the press baron the sweetheart treatment in the first place!

The media leads the pack

Sir Fred Goodwin ranks as one of the most unpopular man in Britain at the moment, as well one of its worst businessmen, having taken RBS to the brink of failure and requiring £33bn of public funds. He then walked away with a £700,000-a-year pension.

But however much of a useless banker you may think he is, vandalising his home isn't the answer - especially when his two school-aged children could have been inside (although it seems the family have been living abroad).

Cast your mind back a couple of weeks to the protests in Luton by Muslims at a soldier's homecoming parade. One of the demonstrators had his home and car attacked and vandalised within days.

So, two men turned into public hate figures by the media, and both have their homes attacked. Do you think at any point, anyone in Fleet Street will have thought - maybe we go too far sometimes?

Danger of poisonous substances (the Express, not mercury)

As if to prove the point made about the Express yesterday, the Science Media Centre has complained about a health scare front page story from 14 March: Dangers of low energy lightbulbs.

One of the main complaints is that it claimed there is mercury powder in low energy lightbulbs (CFLs) - indeed, it said so in the sub-head ('They contain poisonous mercury powder'). Not so - CFLs contain mercury as vapour.

What do the Express say? Surprise, surprise, they stand by their story. Never mind the clear factual error in 18pt font on the front page.

The story goes on to outline Government warnings on dealing with broken CFLs - news which is all very interesting, but also 14 months old.

The DEFRA guidelines state: Energy efficient light bulbs are not a danger to the public...the very small amount [of mercury] contained in an energy efficient bulb is unlikely to cause harm even if the lamp should be broken.

And as this article states, this use of mercury has been used in flourescent strip lighting (in kitchens, for example) for years without any of the apparent fuss the CFLs have attracted. But like the groundless 'phone masts cause cancer' stories, expect this one to run and run.

PCC shows its teeth; they're broken

News from the Select Committee hearings that the Express Newspapers could be kicked out of the Press Complaints Commission illustrates both how weak the PCC is, and how seriously Richard Desmond takes newspaper publishing.

According to the Press Gazette, Tim Bowdler of PressBof said that, if the PCC decided to stop adjudicating complaints about Express Newspapers, those titles would face additional costs as complainants would have no choice but to go to the courts.

So the PCC not adjudicating complaints against the Express and the Star is meant to be a punishment? I can't work that out - the last thing most complainants want to do is go through a lengthy, costly court battle, especially if the dispute is a relatively minor one, so they probably won't complain at all. Which will result in the Express getting away with even worse journalism than it already manages.

When is an asylum seeker not an asylum seeker?

At some point in the last few hours (just gone 6pm on 24 March) the headline on this story on the Mail website has changed from 'Asylum seeker jailed for life for stabbing policeman to death' to NHS blunders left cannabis-crazed schizophrenic free to stab policeman to death.

It appears Tennyson Obih did seek asylum in the UK in 2000 and was granted indefinite leave to remain. Therefore, he's not an asylum seeker. Glad to see the Mail did work this out, even if it did take a while.