Express touts miracle cure, ignores bleedin' obvious

Breaking news - the Express has 'Found: the key to staying slim'. Eating properly and exercising regularly? Apparently not. It's all to do with an intestinal enzyme called MGAT2, which when blocked would apparently allow people to eat whatever crap they want and not put on weight. Which begs the question - won't filling your face with fatty foods still cause other health problems?

It's another of those 'miracle cure' stories based on some very preliminary research. Hardly worth a huge front page headline. And read towards the end of the story, a quote from Professor Steve O’Rahilly, a metabolism expert at Cambridge University: 'much more work needs to be done before we can be sure that drugs designed to block MGAT2 will be safe and effective in human obesity'.

So eating properly and doing exercise is still the best thing after all...

Wrong priorities on torture

Binyam Mohamed was back in the papers on 14 March 2009 - after a break for the Luton protests - following an interview with the BBC.

The Sun got its knickers in a twist over the interview in its 'Outrage at BBC torture claims' story, an outrage it singularly failed to muster following Mohamed's first post-release interview in the Mail on Sunday. (Why the Mail wanted an exclusive with someone it has so little sympathy for is another matter entirely.)

Back to the Sun however, and its tedious BBC-bashing. Even taken at face value (ie. ignoring the Mail interview) the story was 'outraged' at entirely the wrong thing. On the substance of Mohamed's claims of torture it has nothing to say. On the fact he gave a broadcast interview on the BBC where he made those claims again - well, that's outrageous, apparently.

Being tortured = fine. Talking about being tortured on the BBC = 'outrageous'.

Who else was outraged? According to The Sun, Gordon Brown was 'dismayed' by it. And to prove it, they have a quote from his spokesman: 'It’s for the BBC to justify the approach it takes to an interview.'

Which doesn't sound much like outrage or dismay.

Who else? Needless to say, David Davis MP. He said: 'I’m astonished the BBC was happy to give him time to slag off the country he wants to live in but aren’t interested to inquire what he was doing in Afghanistan'.

The very next line of the story reads: The BBC said Mohamed was challenged on various issues, including his reason for visiting Afghanistan.

Hands up who thinks David Davis gave a typically useless, kneejerk outburst without hearing the interview...

Jade-watch (sorry)

Trinity Mirror newspapers make a mockery of themselves and the whole Jade Goody feeding frenzy with this nonsense. An 'exclusive' on the Mirror site dated 14 March 2009:











'Can no longer speak'? So how come the next day, sister paper The People led with her, ummm, talking:










Worth reading - Terence Blacker's column on 'Saint' Max Clifford and a review of Clifford's autobiography.

NOTW: complains about immigrants, doesn't know what they are

In an article headlined Hide 'n' seekers, News of the World reporter Kevin Widdop displays typical tabloid ignorance about definitions of people in the immigration system.

The latest report on the situation in Calais (brace yourself, there's more to come) refers to the people there as 'illegal immigrants', 'illegals', 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees'. That's just about a full house.

The PCC's Guidance note on refugees and asylum seekers says journalists should 'take care to avoid misleading or distorted terminology'. Will the PCC give the NOTW a telling-off for the latest trangression? Don't hold your breath...

Hypocrite of the day

This quote was in an article about David Beckham:

'A shameless, unprincipled little tart who'll do anything for money and fame'.

It was written by, ahem, Piers Morgan.

Recommended reading

Anton at Enemies of Reason takes a look at racism in the Daily Mail. Special mention to the commentator who asked if the Newcastle-born Muslim protestor was 'here legally or illegally though?' How come posts like that get through the moderators, when comments I make - which disagree with the Mail line but are at least coherent, very rarely do?

The Sun - Tabloid Lies article on that paper's Satan's footprints spotted in Devon, the latest evidence of it bizarre obsession with ghosts, UFOs, killer sharks and other completely untrue nonsense.

Also, keep an eye on Bloggerheads for the latest on the Sunday Express/Dunblane story. Sterling work done over there by Tim Ireland.

Quick word about the Mail's 'expose' of Anjem 'Andy' Choudary (Swilling beer, smoking dope and leering at porn). If everything in the article as it seems (big if, but still...) it only goes to prove that Choudary is hardly someone to be taken seriously. Apart from spouting off on his own website (as if anyone but his small band of followers and tabloid journos looking for some inflammatory rhetoric read it) and the odd publicity stunt such as the Luton one, what has he actually done? But with Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Muhammed out the way, the papers need their Muslim hate figure and he's only too willing to fit the bill.

Star's history of bullshit headlines

On 12 March 2009, the Press Complaints Commission ruled that The Daily Star had breached the Editor's Code with a story implying Peaches Geldof was a hooker. The front page headline was: Peaches: Spend night with me for £5k (story removed but you get the idea).

The ruling reads that 'the newspaper made a number of non-specific claims about the complainant being paid for "her company" and for her "services"'. The continuation on page 5 was headlined "Hire Geldof babe or her pal for just £5k a night” and was accompanied by photographs of Ms Geldof at a lingerie shoot.

The implication of all that is pretty clear and the Daily Star and everyone who reads it, knows that.

The actual story was in fact that she was being paid £5000 to show up to parties, although she says that was money for DJ-ing.

The Star put its correction on page 2 ("We also apologise to Peaches for the implication in the headline that she provided services of a personal or sexual nature for the payment of a fee") but is that enough for a front page screamer story published in Sept 08, five and a half months before?

This is, however, just the latest in a long line of Star front page headlines which are not justified by the story.

Go back to 10 Feb 2008 and see the front page splash 'Del Boy is dead'. Again, the implication of the headline is clearly the death of David Jason. The actual story - John Sullivan isn't going to write any more Only Fools and Horses - is rather different, and although the headline is in that (rare) case accurate, it's not what you expect.

On 8 May 2008, it was at it again with Gazza dead and gone for good. This oddly worded headline would still leave anyone thinking Paul Gascoigne was dead. In fact, his daughter Bianca had wanted to get on the front page in her underwear (sorry, reveal her dad's tragic plight) and revealed: her stepdad will never again be the prankster who won the hearts of fans all over the world. The former England star is seriously ill with depression, and Bianca admits his family is powerless to help him. In other words: not dead.

Come December, and the mind-boggling fascination the Star has for reality TV, it had almost daily splashes about I'm A Celebrity.

18 Dec - Jungle sex in shower shock. Shocking indeed that some z-grade slebs had been having sex in the showers on a reality TV show.

Here's the first four lines of the story: The jungle stars are steaming up the camp with their X-rated shower exploits. And show bosses say the contestants – including Page 3 girl Nicola McLean – are set to turn I’m A Celebrity into a “sex fest”. Producers are enticing the stars to get wet ’n wild by pumping hot water into the showers instead of the usual cold. The move has already produced some naked scenes that were too hot to be screened.

Two things stand out about this. One, there hasn't been any sex or steamy exploits. Two, there is no sane person on earth who would think that a broadcaster with ratings-grabbing 'naked scenes' would decide not to show them.

22 Dec - Celebs naked jungle romp. Pretty much implies the same story as before. Here's the first few lines: JUNGLE celebs including hot Page 3 babe Nicola McLean were last night gearing up for an X-rated sex fest in the shower. One of them has already stunned campmates by going starkers for a steamy soapdown. I'M A CELEBRITY bosses have had to cut sizzling sex scenes from our screens because the horny stars cannot keep their hands off each other.

So there's that 'too steamy to show' bullshit again. Of course, by using that excuse, they can claim that practically anything has happened and hide behind that for why viewers will never actually see it. But of course, it hasn't happened. 'Gearing up for an X-rated sex fest' makes clear it hasn't happened. And as for 'going starkers for a steamy soapdown' - that's basically getting naked to wash in the shower. How shocking.

Guess what? The next day we had 'Jungle sex for Simon'. Now this isn't just random claims of general romping, this is a named person having had sex. This one must be true. Here goes:

THREESOME-LOVING singer Simon Webbe is heading for a jungle showdown with his angry pop star lover. We can reveal he took part in a steamy suds and splashing session with sexy WAGs CARLY ZUCKER and NICOLA MCLEAN. And the action was judged too hot for viewers and was binned by telly chiefs.

Now, I don't know in what universe 'suds and splashing session' equals sex, but that suggests there are some deeply repressed people at the Star. Once again the footage has been banned (what a surprise...) and another lurid headline revealed to be completely untrue.

The very next day the Star went for three cheap, titillating and false stories in a row. What a record. The story appears to have gone from the Star site, but after jungle romps and threesomes, lesbianism was the only way to go. Of course, no such 'lust' ever happened. And if it had, it would have been banned etc etc.

And on and on it went. And when it got bored of I'm A Celebrity it went on to Britney. The front page story Britney live sex show shock on 3 Dec 08 was eye-catching indeed. The first line: BRITNEY Spears put on a live TV sex show yesterday in a desperate bid to win back fans after her X Factor fiasco. OK, that sounds like it's backing up the headline. Let's read on. The troubled singer delivered her raunchiest ever performance dressed as a sexy ringmaster. Just about with you still, what else? She pulled out all the stops with a saucy set live on the top US breakfast show, Good Morning America, which you can watch above.

Umm, what? A live sex show on Good Morning America? Are you sure? Handily there's a link to the video of the performance, now embedded on the website story page. And what do you get? Frankly, an all too typical song (mime) and dance routine by a half dressed young female pop star. Well, that's certainly front page news, isn't it?

Now all this may seem rather frivolous, but the problem is, the Star keeps doing it and they keep getting away with it. And it's not just on their sleb stories.

Take 'Muslim plot to blow up Eastenders' (again, removed because of a complaint, but can be read here - site not recommended, but gives a good idea of how quickly a false story can become spread all over numerous vile blogs). A Muslim character on Eastenders was shown breaking his Ramadan fast, and this (apparently) led to complaints on a Muslim forum.

Several things to note. One, how the hell do you 'blow up' something that doesn't actually exist? Two, how the hell do anonymous posts on an unnamed blog become sources for a front page 'news' story? Three, how the hell do we know that these comments haven't been posted by Star journos looking for a Muslim-bashing story?

Four, read the comments. There is no 'threat' to 'blow up' anything. Even if you accept the comments as genuine, it's just loud mouths sounding off online, which anyone can do these days (yes, including me!). It seems there was a complaint to the PCC, and a correction published by the Star (On October 3 we reported that bloggers had threatened to “blow up EastEnders” after postman Masood Ahmed had broken his Ramadan fast. While the online posts included a threat of the “ultimate sacrifice”, we accept that they did not specifically contain a bomb threat) but that appears to have taken around 5 months to appear.

If the PCC had any balls at all, it would try and put a stop to this behaviour of misleading front page headlines. There's no point accusing the Star of 'sloppy journalism' (yeh, newsflash!) as the PCC do in the Peaches Geldof ruling, because that 'sloppiness' is entirely intentional to make these innuendos. You don't really expect anything better from the Desmond papers, and while they keep selling them to gullible passers-by, they'll just keep on doing it.

Sorry for the long post. Rant over!

Blame the Muslims

There is something about this story - Gym club banned from holding classes at girls school after Muslim parents complain about boy members - that sounds very fishy. The story popped up in all the usual suspects - The Sun had it as Kids gym axed in Muslim fury and the Express said School gym forced to shut by Muslims.

The Shirley Gymnastics Club has been asked to move from the all girls Old Palace School in Croydon.

The Club Chairman Colin Parry touted it around all the papers that it was the fault of them Muslims. 'There is a group of Muslim parents with Muslim children at the school and they are the ones putting pressure on the headteacher', he says, because there are boys in the gym club and the parents didn't want them mixing with their girls.

A Tory Councillor, Dudley Mead, was called on for an informed quote. Unfortunately, all he could offer instead was: 'That's the Muslim belief isn't it? They are very protective of their female children.'

So what do the school say? Not too much, but in a statement said:

We were unable to accommodate the early starting time of the club as the school was still functioning. We had hoped that the club could be held at a later time but this was thought unworkable by the organisers. It has not been a decision taken lightly but we have to consider the needs of the school and the security of the site given the very young age of our juniors.

Yes. So nothing to do with 'Muslim fury' then? Well, maybe she wouldn't say that explicitly even if it were true.

But buried in the story is this:

In a bid to find a compromise, the school suggested the gym club start at 6.30pm, rather than 5pm, by which time school pupils would have left the site. But Mr Perry said this was unworkable as it would mean some sessions not ending until 9.30pm, too late for many of the club's members, some as young as five.

So the Club has not been 'kicked out', as The Sun says. Much less 'forced to close' as the Express claims. It has been asked to move to a later time, which it doesn't want to do. Mr Perry says they can't start later as a 9.30 finish would be too late for the five year old members. Which may beg the question - why the hell are five year olds doing 3 hour exercise sessions?

Recommended read - Mail/Migrationwatch figures

Fine analysis from Angry Mob and 5CC (with far more detail than I can manage!)

Recommended read - Enemies of reason

Great expose of the total rubbish that continues to spew forth from the Desmond papers - an article that oh-so-tastefully attacks the survivors of the shootings in Dunblane. The article has been removed from the Express' website but read the story here.

Littlejohn - hates gays more than Muslims

Anyone could write the cretinous columns produced by intellectual vacuum Richard Littlejohn. Come up with a stupid nickname for a politician, add in 'mind how you go' and 'couldn't make it up', drag in some half-true political correctness story, mock Guardian readers and watch your bank balance rocket (up to £800,000 a year, according to some reports)

This week, Littlejohn hates gays.

A London school has taken a cue from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month to teach pupils about same sex relationships. Outrageous, right? Never mind that 65% of lesbian, gay and bisexual children experience homophobic bullying and so discussing homosexuality in school might be a good idea. He doesn't give a toss about that. Probably just PC, Guardianista propaganda.

Schools talking to their pupils about homosexuality is 'deranged social engineering', 'fatuous drivel' and 'cultural fascism'. His ignorance knows no bounds. He seems to think homosexuality is nuture not nature. He talks about 'parents who choose to tell their children about homosexuality,' as if children who are gay haven't worked out something for themselves already. And you can hear in lines such as 'peddle gay propaganda to children as young as five' some bizarre paranoia about kids being 'turned'.

He even says: 'And why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway? Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?' as if these two groups are on a par.

The point of his article however, is that some parents, including Muslim ones, have withdrawn their children from these lessons on religious grounds. Normally, that would be considered by Littlejohn to be a failure to integrate and a reason to bash Islam. Again.

He does have a go at the Muslim PC suing his force, just in case the slack-jawed fans thought he'd totally lost his mojo.

Worth reading from the archives: Littlejohn mentions homosexuality 104 times in 90 columns.

Freedom of speech for who?

Not much surprise about the fact that the Sun, Mail and Express all decided their front pages on 11 March 09 should be outrage at the demonstration by a 'hate filled mob' at a homecoming parade for British soldiers.

The protesters numbered between 12 and 20, depending on which paper you read, and were led by Anjem Choudary, shameless self-publicist and current favourite tabloid hate figure. Rather than ignore it, so as to not give them the oxygen of publicity, they splash it all over the the front and inside pages to stoke more anti-Muslim feeling. Not in the least predictable, Melanie Phillips has weighed in with another tiresome rant about the 'Islamist threat to this country'. Forgive me if I don't feel threatened by 20 loudmouths with placards in Luton.

The tone of the coverage has been filled with words such as 'vile abuse', 'repellent', 'turns our stomach' and 'sickening'.

The one question that needs to be asked by these papers is this - why are they happy to defend people's freedom of speech only for certain people?

Compare, for example, to the Mail's story two days earlier headlined Tory councillor faces race hate charges after telling meeting gypsies would 'stab you as soon as look at you'. It didn't get much coverage but the tone of that article is nothing like as appalled as with the Luton stories. Indeed, the Mail website comments section is full of people defending him with the 'freedom of speech' line.

And of course, the Mail was all too willing to defend Carol Thatcher over her golliwog remarks and Geert Wilders over his anti-Islam film as free speech issues.

So why do they not defend the right to this sad group of Muslims to excersise their right to free speech?

Mail laughs at racism

The Mail (9 March 09) has once again made it seem that claims of racism are something to be mocked.

Muslim PC sues after workmates 'laughed at his beard' takes one of the less serious aspects of the allegations and makes a headline out of it, so people can say things such as: 'Here we go again!!!!' and 'Look out, there goes another half million quid in compensation,' among fifty-plus comments that all concentrate on the beard.

Yes as the story makes clear, the PC making the claim (Javid Iqbal) has also claimed he was called a 'fucking Paki' by colleagues and 'white officers openly discussed in front of him how they were 'better' than their ethnic-minority colleagues.'

So why isn't the headline 'Muslim PC sues after workmates call him 'fucking Paki''? Because that would make it seem like a serious story about anti-Muslim discrimination and racism. And in the Mail, that would never do.

A full house

In a Robert Murat style mass-grovel, eight papers (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the London Paper and the Daily Express, plus Times Online and Metro Online) and Sky News have apologised and paid 'substantial' libel damages to a woman whose house wasn't trashed during a party at her house that wasn't organised via Facebook. Read the story here.

Talking of Murat, he has given a speech to the Oxford Union talking about his experiences of the media. It would be good the read the full speech but Michael White's report contains plenty of good detail.

Who is Michael Causer?

Remember Rhys Jones? The young Liverpool boy who was killed - shot in the back by Sean Mercer - after leaving a football practice session. His desperately sad story, received blanket coverage.

Remember Anthony Walker? The Liverpool teenager killed with an ice axe in a racist attack. His desperately sad story, received blanket coverage.

Now, do you remember Michael Causer? He was a Liverpool teenager battered to death while he slept. Chances are, you won't have heard of him. Go to the websites of the Mail, Express, Sun, Times and Telegraph and search for his name. Nothing will come up. In the spate of murders of teenagers that have had lots of media coverage in the last year or so, the death of Michael Causer was ignored. Why?

Because he was gay.

The background to the case can be read in an Independent story which revealed the accused was acquitted in Feb 09. You can also find stories in the Guardian about the case. But the other papers didn't think it was worth reporting.

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall is quoted in the Indy story as saying: “It is testament to the lack of seriousness with which these kinds of incidents are treated. They are simply not regarded as newsworthy. The BBC has reported every single murder of an adolescent in the past 18 months in this country as a national news story, but not this one.”

Why would Michael's death not be considered newsworthy? What is it about him that distinguishes him from the others?

He was gay.

It is hardly surprising giving the way these newspapers report gay issues - the Daily Star still thinks the word 'fruit' is acceptable (no direct link, but it was 23 May 2006, in front page headline) and thinks all gay men carry handbags.

When a story about using pink balls in cricket in The Sun gets the headline: 'Looks like it's gay-Lord's!' and the first line: 'CRICKETERS may look like they are batting for the other side — hitting PINK balls,' a story written by the almost certainly made up reporter James Clench.

When The Sun can write about Carmen Electra on 23 March 2007 which begins: 'Carmen Electra has been accused of sharing a lesbian love affair with rocker Joan Jett'. Accused? In what other relationship has the word accused appeared in that way?

Remember the 30 January 2007 front page, published at the height of the Celebrity Big Brother Shilpagate affair? (I know this is not meant to be mentioned because of the impending death of St Jade of Goody, but I'm going to anyway). Why was homosexuality left out?

You could say because it was a front page about racism, but then why was 'chav' included?

Then again, had they included it, they probably would have given the boy holding the sign a pink outfit and handbag...