The headline on today's Mail story Hundreds of illegal immigrants armed with knives and crowbars swarm round Calais trucks heading for Britain is a typical piece of scaremongering which doesn't even survive the third paragraph of the story. It's trying to pretend that these illegal immigrants are dangerous, heavily armed, brutal.
But in paragraph two we have 'around 100 illegal immigrants' and a few lines later: 'Some carry crowbars or knives to try to prise open a chink in the lorries' defences'.
So from 'hundreds of armed illegal immigrants' to 'around a hundred of which some carry tools to break into trucks' within a few dozen words.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Friday, 8 May 2009
Gaunt defends free speech - but only for some
Jon Gaunt has got little more than self-interest on his mind with his latest ranting column attacking Jacqui Smith for adding American shock-jock Michael Savageto a list of people banned from the UK.
A profile in the Telegraph reveals he's said: "Get Aids and die, you pig," the American radio "shock jock" told a purportedly homosexual man who once badmouthed his teeth. He has plenty more vitriol to go around. Latinos "breed like rabbits" , Muslims "need deporting" and as for autistic children, "in 99 per cent of cases it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out".
Savage has said he planned to sue over the banning, despite saying in 2006 he thought all Muslims should be banned from the US. Does he think they should all sue him?
Although claiming it's a free speech issue, why would Jon Gaunt want to defend a loudmouth, intolerant, right-wing radio presenter? Oh, wait...
He rather gives it away when he mentions that: 'Even DJs like me can be sacked for calling a councillor who wants to ban smokers from adopting a “health fascist”'. In fact this is a blatant lie - the direct quote of 'health fascist' should in fact be 'health Nazi'. Although clearly it's beyond the wit of Gaunty to know that fascist and Nazi are not interchangeable insults.
But when the infamous Luton protests happened Gaunty was suggesting they should not have been allowed. He wrote of Gillian Parker: 'As chief constable of the Bedfordshire force, her act of appeasement [just to add another Nazi reference] to Muslim fanatics by allowing them to demonstrate and ruin what should have been a proud day for the people of Luton was an insult to the brave men and women she is meant to lead.'
In his latest column he writes: 'In a mature democracy, all voices and opinions should be debated.' But that only appears to be for anti-Muslim opinions like his and Savage's.
'Now, more than ever, it is time for us to stand up and fight again — for the right for every true Brit to say what he thinks, when he thinks it.' Notice the use of 'us' and 'true Brit' as if there are people - and we know who he is thinking of - who aren't 'one of us' or 'true Brits'. Perhaps if his paper reported on today's survey on how Muslims feel loyal to the UK, he might learn something.
A profile in the Telegraph reveals he's said: "Get Aids and die, you pig," the American radio "shock jock" told a purportedly homosexual man who once badmouthed his teeth. He has plenty more vitriol to go around. Latinos "breed like rabbits" , Muslims "need deporting" and as for autistic children, "in 99 per cent of cases it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out".
Savage has said he planned to sue over the banning, despite saying in 2006 he thought all Muslims should be banned from the US. Does he think they should all sue him?
Although claiming it's a free speech issue, why would Jon Gaunt want to defend a loudmouth, intolerant, right-wing radio presenter? Oh, wait...
He rather gives it away when he mentions that: 'Even DJs like me can be sacked for calling a councillor who wants to ban smokers from adopting a “health fascist”'. In fact this is a blatant lie - the direct quote of 'health fascist' should in fact be 'health Nazi'. Although clearly it's beyond the wit of Gaunty to know that fascist and Nazi are not interchangeable insults.
But when the infamous Luton protests happened Gaunty was suggesting they should not have been allowed. He wrote of Gillian Parker: 'As chief constable of the Bedfordshire force, her act of appeasement [just to add another Nazi reference] to Muslim fanatics by allowing them to demonstrate and ruin what should have been a proud day for the people of Luton was an insult to the brave men and women she is meant to lead.'
In his latest column he writes: 'In a mature democracy, all voices and opinions should be debated.' But that only appears to be for anti-Muslim opinions like his and Savage's.
'Now, more than ever, it is time for us to stand up and fight again — for the right for every true Brit to say what he thinks, when he thinks it.' Notice the use of 'us' and 'true Brit' as if there are people - and we know who he is thinking of - who aren't 'one of us' or 'true Brits'. Perhaps if his paper reported on today's survey on how Muslims feel loyal to the UK, he might learn something.
Express calls Muslims the 'most loyal people in Britain' shock!
Mark the day. It's almost impossible to believe, but the Express has a positive story about the British Muslim community today. It may be a first. The headline is 'The most loyal people in Britain' although it would of course be beyond them to say 'British Muslims are the most loyal people in Britain'.The story is based on a survey by Gallup and the Coexist Foundation. The headline figure is that 77% of British Muslims say they identified strongly with the UK, compared to only 50% of the general public.
By contrast, only '36 per cent of the general public considered Muslims to be loyal'. There can be no doubt that the drip-drip of negative stories heavily influences that figure.
There was also a difference in the confidence they had in the police - 76% compared to 67% of the general public.
Perhaps one of the most notable numbers was that only 3% of British Muslims believed other religions threatened their way of life, while 26% of the general public did. Ditto about the drip-drip of negative stories.
The Times, Telegraph and Independent all lead with the 'loyalty' figure in reporting the survey findings. Although as if to prove it's not just the Mail's readers who are intolerant mouth-breathers, Janis from Melba, USSA (wherever that is) writes on the Times' story: 'No wonder since all you all do is appease the muslims. You know what they are after (the muslims) to take over the world.'
And guess what? The Sun doesn't regard this survey to be of any interest at all. It doesn't get a mention on their website anywhere.
Whereas the Mail, totally perversely, decides to highlight one of the few 'negative' aspects of the survey with the headline: Just one in 10 British Muslims feel integrated into society. The figure about loyalty to the UK is held back until the seventh paragraph. Before then, the Mail warns:
it found that more than a third are dissatisfied with their standard of living...The findings sound a warning that despite the efforts of ministers and Islamic leaders since the 2005 London bombings to build common ground between some Islamic communities and their neighbours, doubts, mistrust and resentment continue to exist.
Muslims don't feel integrated? With such ridiculously skewed reporting such as this - and reactions to the Luton Islamic Centre fire earlier in the week - is that any surprise?
Mail's obsession with Jonathan Ross continues
The release of the latest Rajar radio figures has given the Mail opportunity to crow over the fact that Jonathan Ross' Radio 2 show has lost 360,000 listeners since 2008.
'The desertion of almost a tenth of his audience will be linked by many to his lewd calls to veteran actor Andrew Sachs,' writes Jo Clements. Many at the Mail that is.
But Ross is still getting 3.03million listeners, so it's hardly as if everyone has turned off in disgust. And Terry Wogan's show has lost around 330,000 listeners over the same period but there's no headline article highlighting that drop.
Given that Andrew Sachs was quoted in an interview last weekend thanking Ross and Brand for the boost the 'Sachsgate' affair gave to his career ('I came out of it very well … my profile's up. Great! They did me good. Thank you very much'), isn't it time the Mail dropped it?
'The desertion of almost a tenth of his audience will be linked by many to his lewd calls to veteran actor Andrew Sachs,' writes Jo Clements. Many at the Mail that is.
But Ross is still getting 3.03million listeners, so it's hardly as if everyone has turned off in disgust. And Terry Wogan's show has lost around 330,000 listeners over the same period but there's no headline article highlighting that drop.
Given that Andrew Sachs was quoted in an interview last weekend thanking Ross and Brand for the boost the 'Sachsgate' affair gave to his career ('I came out of it very well … my profile's up. Great! They did me good. Thank you very much'), isn't it time the Mail dropped it?
Mail uses paedophile story to push homophobia
The guilty verdicts against eight men involved in a paedophile ring in Scotland is a horrendous story. But even something this serious can be - for want of a better word - abused by shameless tabloids to further their agenda.
The Daily Mail decides to turn its insidious focus on to one element of the story in its headline: Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse. Because it likes to imply there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
James Rennie was involved in LGBT Scotland and the Mail is clearly trying to fan some homophobic outrage by pointing out the group was 'a publicly-funded support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people' and 'received £1.1million in 2008 from the Executive, councils and health boards.' He also 'lobbied strongly for gay adoption.'
The question is this: would any of this emphasis or detail be included if he was straight, married and worked in another charitable field? Probably not. Indeed, in the short picture profiles of each of the men, four of them are implied to be gay whereas the other four do not have any such mention of their sexuality. Why not?
The Daily Mail decides to turn its insidious focus on to one element of the story in its headline: Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse. Because it likes to imply there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
James Rennie was involved in LGBT Scotland and the Mail is clearly trying to fan some homophobic outrage by pointing out the group was 'a publicly-funded support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people' and 'received £1.1million in 2008 from the Executive, councils and health boards.' He also 'lobbied strongly for gay adoption.'
The question is this: would any of this emphasis or detail be included if he was straight, married and worked in another charitable field? Probably not. Indeed, in the short picture profiles of each of the men, four of them are implied to be gay whereas the other four do not have any such mention of their sexuality. Why not?
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Islamic Centre burns, tabloids shrug
Remember how, following those protests by a group of placard-waving Muslims in Luton, the home and cars of one of them were attacked? Well the Sun is now reporting that an Islamic Centre in Luton has been 'gutted' in an arson attack.
Luckily, no-one was hurt. Although going by some of the comments, that isn't good news for Sun readers.
'Oh dear I won't get a wink of sleep tonight,' says exbootneck.
'Oh dear, how sad, never mind,' sneers Pete30601.
'Let this be a warning to anybody that slanders our wonderful military forces,' threatens sugoiboy.
Joepub is 'gutted' - but only because he thinks the taxpayer will have to pay for the re-build.
But the most curious comment comes from gloryglory who says: 'I wonder if there would be all this publicity if this was a Church that had an arson attack, and not a Mosque? No, I didn't think so, either.'
It wasn't a mosque, so the comparison isn't really on. But it's nonsense anyway - if a church had been burnt, we all know that it would be all over the tabloids. You know, like when Muslims were falsely blamed for attacking a soldier's home in Windsor.
But the most interesting bit of the comment is 'all this publicity'. That's 165 words in the Sun, and not one word in either the Mail or Express. Compare that with 'all the publicity' the original protests received.
Luckily, no-one was hurt. Although going by some of the comments, that isn't good news for Sun readers.
'Oh dear I won't get a wink of sleep tonight,' says exbootneck.
'Oh dear, how sad, never mind,' sneers Pete30601.
'Let this be a warning to anybody that slanders our wonderful military forces,' threatens sugoiboy.
Joepub is 'gutted' - but only because he thinks the taxpayer will have to pay for the re-build.
But the most curious comment comes from gloryglory who says: 'I wonder if there would be all this publicity if this was a Church that had an arson attack, and not a Mosque? No, I didn't think so, either.'
It wasn't a mosque, so the comparison isn't really on. But it's nonsense anyway - if a church had been burnt, we all know that it would be all over the tabloids. You know, like when Muslims were falsely blamed for attacking a soldier's home in Windsor.
But the most interesting bit of the comment is 'all this publicity'. That's 165 words in the Sun, and not one word in either the Mail or Express. Compare that with 'all the publicity' the original protests received.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Sun clarifies lies about Heather Mills
The Sun is the latest to make a 'clarification' - it clearly avoids apologising - about Heather Mills over a series of articles that have seen several 'clarifications' printed - including in the Express, Mail and Sunday Mirror. The Sun wrote:
HEATHER Mills has asked us to make clear she denies spending £10million of her divorce settlement, trying to sell her home to her ex-husband, masterminding a smear campaign against him and spending £1m on a swimming pool, £0.5m on staff wages and £6m on properties as we have reported. We are happy to make this clear and regret the misunderstanding.
HEATHER Mills has asked us to make clear she denies spending £10million of her divorce settlement, trying to sell her home to her ex-husband, masterminding a smear campaign against him and spending £1m on a swimming pool, £0.5m on staff wages and £6m on properties as we have reported. We are happy to make this clear and regret the misunderstanding.
Hypocrisy on royal bodyguards
Today the Mail is reporting Princess Eugenie mugged in Cambodia as thieves pelt her bodyguards with rocks. The story goes on to claim:
the fortunate escape is likely to vindicate the controversial use of round-the-clock protection for Eugenie and her older sister Beatrice...Both have faced criticism for the enormous cost of their security entourage.
'Controversy' and 'criticism'? Where from? Oh yes, that's right - it was in the Mail. On 18 April. They ran a two page spread asking Just why are we paying Princess Eugenie's £100,000 gap-year security bill? as it sniffed: 'Cavorting topless. Drinking till dawn. The gap year's a rite of passage. But for the sixth in line to the throne, it means embarrassing headlines for Grandma - and, more pertinently, round-the-clock bodyguards at great cost, paid for by you and me.'
Selective amnesia or shameless hypocrisy?
the fortunate escape is likely to vindicate the controversial use of round-the-clock protection for Eugenie and her older sister Beatrice...Both have faced criticism for the enormous cost of their security entourage.
'Controversy' and 'criticism'? Where from? Oh yes, that's right - it was in the Mail. On 18 April. They ran a two page spread asking Just why are we paying Princess Eugenie's £100,000 gap-year security bill? as it sniffed: 'Cavorting topless. Drinking till dawn. The gap year's a rite of passage. But for the sixth in line to the throne, it means embarrassing headlines for Grandma - and, more pertinently, round-the-clock bodyguards at great cost, paid for by you and me.'
Selective amnesia or shameless hypocrisy?
Express/Migrationwatch immigration scares (part 938)
Today's Daily Express front page is one of those that you look at and know isn't true. You don't even need to read the rest.It's not exactly surprising that an immigration scare story that leads the Express is sourced from Migrationwatch. What is noticeable almost straight away about this one is that it hasn't reported MigrationWatch's briefing paper accurately. At all.
Migrationwatch states: 'A two child family living on the minimum wage whose parents live to 80 years of age costs the taxpayer between £900,000 and £1.1million over their lifetime.'
So that's '£1million' for a family of four. Not 'each illegal immigrant to cost us £1m' or a 'staggering £1million for each newcomer'.
As for that £1million figure, that is also highly dubious, although that is down to Migrationwatch rather than the Express (it's too much to expect Express hacks to do anything like fact-check, it's copy-and-paste all the way with Migrationwatch press releases.)
For a start, the paper is titled: 'Potential lifetime costs of an amnesty'. The doubt implied by the word 'potential' is of course absent from the Express, who use 'would cost'.
But Migrationwatch are basing their figures on highly speculative circumstances. It assumes every illegal immigrant is 25. It is assumes every illegal immigrant is going to get married and have two children who will claim child benefit for 16 years each (although it doesn't appear to assume these children will grow up and start working/paying tax). It assumes they are going to be in a minimum wage job for 40 years. It assumes they will then retire and live on pensioner credit for 15 years before dying at 80. It assumes every one of these families will spend their whole life in rented accommodation and will therefore spend 40 years on housing benefit - which amounts to £505,000 of the £1.1million 'cost' for London based immigrants.
That figure alone - half the total - based on that joint assumption about rented accommodation and minimum wage, seems so highly speculative it makes the whole thing seem like pointless scaremongering. Which is, of course, what it is. The Express' editorial even admits 'the Government and the Border Control Agency are unwilling to contemplate an amnesty'.
The Express do mention, in one paragraph, an IPPR report claiming that if these illegal immigrants were given an amnesty, they could pay around £1billion per year in tax. Now why wouldn't it put that figure in a front page splash?
What Susan Boyle won't do next
Another day, another Daily Star lie about Susan Boyle and I'm a Celebrity. Hairy Angel in Celeb Jungle makes it sound like a done deal. Of course, it isn't. The story is based on an anonymous source saying Boyle would be good for ratings. But it's all caveats - she 'could' be on the show, she is 'being lined up' for it, 'bosses reckon...[she] would be perfect.'And as anyone who reads Daily Star reality tv stories knows, the 'anonymous source' doesn't exist.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Now Facebook puts you in a coma
After blaming Facebook for cancer, brain damage and making you fail exams, the Mail is now running a story accusing the social networking site of putting someone in a coma.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Melanie Phillips tortures the truth
It's not a tabloid, by an article by Mail columnist Melanie Phillips in the Spectator requires comment as it includes such bizarre inaccuracies.
She is commentating on an article by Andrew Sullivan about the so called 'torture memos', released by the Obama administration.
At first she says 'alleged use of torture' which is a ridiculous thing to say now we know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. Bush apologists such as Phillips claim waterboarding isn't torture or/and that it works. Well, if it works, why do you need to do it 183 times in one month? And if it isn't torture, why were Japanese soldiers convicted and executed for doing it to American and Allied soldiers after the Second Word War?
Anyway, Phillips goes on to claim there is mindless anti-Bush lobby who wrongly accuse him and his cronies of linking 9/11 with Saddam, Al-Qaeda with Iraq.
This is clearly, provably wrong. Here's Cheney on Meet the Press in September 2003 saying:
That's not making an operational link, Mel? OK, it's not Bush saying that, but Sullivan in fact accuses 'the Bush and Cheney ideology' of an 'operational link' so it would be intellectually dishonest of her to narrow that (yes, I know, that wouldn't stop her).
Bob Woodward in his book Bush At War quoted Bush at a Camp David meeting saying:
David Corn, who has written a book on the lead up to war, says:
And:
Watch this and see Cheney say Saddam had links with Al-Qaeda and that the lead hijacker on 9/11 met with Iraqi intelligence, and then lie about saying it, and then hear Bush confirm he said it.
The BBC also has a series of quotes here which shows how Cheney, Rice and Powell nudged and winked people towards a link. Note Cheney's statement that:
That was a few examples just from a quick Google search. I am totally convinced many more could be found. So why couldn't Phillips find any? Because like the loyal Bushies, she has an agenda to push and won't let anything like facts or evidence get in the way.
She is commentating on an article by Andrew Sullivan about the so called 'torture memos', released by the Obama administration.
At first she says 'alleged use of torture' which is a ridiculous thing to say now we know Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. Bush apologists such as Phillips claim waterboarding isn't torture or/and that it works. Well, if it works, why do you need to do it 183 times in one month? And if it isn't torture, why were Japanese soldiers convicted and executed for doing it to American and Allied soldiers after the Second Word War?
Anyway, Phillips goes on to claim there is mindless anti-Bush lobby who wrongly accuse him and his cronies of linking 9/11 with Saddam, Al-Qaeda with Iraq.
'This claim was always false. Bush said no such thing...Bush did not at any time say there was an operational link. He said rather that there had been high level contacts.' She talks of 'repeated statements by the Bush administration that there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11'.
This is clearly, provably wrong. Here's Cheney on Meet the Press in September 2003 saying:
"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."
That's not making an operational link, Mel? OK, it's not Bush saying that, but Sullivan in fact accuses 'the Bush and Cheney ideology' of an 'operational link' so it would be intellectually dishonest of her to narrow that (yes, I know, that wouldn't stop her).
Bob Woodward in his book Bush At War quoted Bush at a Camp David meeting saying:
"I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now. I don't have the evidence at this point."
David Corn, who has written a book on the lead up to war, says:
'Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda'.
And:
'What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it."'
Watch this and see Cheney say Saddam had links with Al-Qaeda and that the lead hijacker on 9/11 met with Iraqi intelligence, and then lie about saying it, and then hear Bush confirm he said it.
The BBC also has a series of quotes here which shows how Cheney, Rice and Powell nudged and winked people towards a link. Note Cheney's statement that:
'We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the...geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'
That was a few examples just from a quick Google search. I am totally convinced many more could be found. So why couldn't Phillips find any? Because like the loyal Bushies, she has an agenda to push and won't let anything like facts or evidence get in the way.
Littlejohn shows his ignorance. Again.
In between one mention of 'hell in a handcart' and two of 'elf'n'safety' (I shudder just typing it), Littlejohn once again proves his total ignorance of the matters he writes about. In a rant about the reduction in the number of job vacancies for migrant workers ('Believe it when it happens. There’s always a loophole') he says that there is still a shortage of orchestral musicians. Therefore:
Stand by for an influx of asylum-seekers arriving at Victoria coach station clutching violins, clinging to the roof of Eurostar with one hand while playing a clarinet with the other and tap-dancing their way through immigration.
Which manages to be both totally unfunny and totally incorrect. Because asylum seekers aren't allowed to work. You'd think someone who was so obsessed with the subject would at least know that after all this time.
Stand by for an influx of asylum-seekers arriving at Victoria coach station clutching violins, clinging to the roof of Eurostar with one hand while playing a clarinet with the other and tap-dancing their way through immigration.
Which manages to be both totally unfunny and totally incorrect. Because asylum seekers aren't allowed to work. You'd think someone who was so obsessed with the subject would at least know that after all this time.
Recommended - Angry Mob
Following two posts here about homophobia in the Sun and Mail, Angry Mob has gone into more detail about another Mail story that provides more evidence about what seems to be a rather ignored area of distasteful media coverage.
Star forced to apologise - again
The Star has apologised for the story about Prince William 'wrecking' an RAF plane. Two weeks seems a long time to correct something so obviously bogus, but then you get the feeling that had it been someone less important, it wouldn't have happened even that quickly.
Note that this was on page 2, the original all over the front, and that all the details in this apology were in the original story. So the question remains - what the hell was this (non) story doing on the front page in the first place?
We have been asked to make clear that, although the plane's engine had to be stripped and was out of action for a short time for investigation, no damage was done by the prince and the plane was not 'wrecked'. We apologise to Prince William for any embarrassment our article may have caused.
Note that this was on page 2, the original all over the front, and that all the details in this apology were in the original story. So the question remains - what the hell was this (non) story doing on the front page in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
