Septicisle has done a very fine analysis of the Alfie Patten case.
Embarrassingly, yesterday's post about Miley Cyrus sounded rather too similar to one at Daily Quail, which went further in exposing the hypocrisy of the Mail (shock!) regarding pics of the 15 year old Cyrus. I'll have to read other blogs before hurriedly writing new posts...
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Mail hearts Miley
At the start of April, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she attended some music award ceremony.
At the start of April, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she attended her movie premiere ('flashes her legs in a VERY short dress').
Yesterday, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she 'soaked up the sun in the Bahamas' in a bikini.
Miley Cyrus is 16 and a half.
At the start of April, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she attended her movie premiere ('flashes her legs in a VERY short dress').
Yesterday, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she 'soaked up the sun in the Bahamas' in a bikini.
Miley Cyrus is 16 and a half.
Those apologies in full
More on Alfie Patten later, but still no apology from The Sun. Apparently, the paper is going to set up a trust fund for him. Max Clifford, who is representing the family, said on Radio 4 that: 'My understanding is that they [The Sun] haven't paid him [Alfie] any money at all.'
His 'understanding'? Either they have or they haven't. I don't believe Clifford doesn't know.
Meanwhile the Mail on Sunday has apologised for suggesting Tessa Jowell corrupt - only took a month for them to admit that error.
His 'understanding'? Either they have or they haven't. I don't believe Clifford doesn't know.
Meanwhile the Mail on Sunday has apologised for suggesting Tessa Jowell corrupt - only took a month for them to admit that error.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Sun - not the most truthful in Britain
Ten minutes ago, a breaking news email from The Sun pinged into my inbox. It revealed that Alfie Patten, who a few months ago was reported, by The Sun, to be the youngest Dad in Britain at 13, ummm, isn't.
DNA tests have proved he wasn't the father. DNA tests have also proved that The Sun published a wholly inaccurate front page story and hasn't, in light of this 'new' development, apologised.
I say 'new' because as the rest of the world knew this on 27 March, when it was all over Google News.
I'm not sure how this has come to be reported now, as there was an injunction banning publication of further details of the case, but all will be revealed in time.
DNA tests have proved he wasn't the father. DNA tests have also proved that The Sun published a wholly inaccurate front page story and hasn't, in light of this 'new' development, apologised.
I say 'new' because as the rest of the world knew this on 27 March, when it was all over Google News.
I'm not sure how this has come to be reported now, as there was an injunction banning publication of further details of the case, but all will be revealed in time.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Mail not being sued...sadly
Jonathan Ross is, apparently, suing over a story headlined: 'Daniel Craig leaves 'desperate' Jonathan Ross shaken and stirred', which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 11 January and online.
The article claimed - entirely falsely, as it turned out - guests were reluctant to appear on his chat show after his Sachsgate suspension.
The Mail, in its anti-Ross frenzy, repeated the story on 13 January:
No doubt this was heavily borrowed from the original. It included this gem:
'It has emerged that Tom Cruise, who has been lined up for Ross's comeback on January 23, is having 'second thoughts' - specifically because of the Sachs scandal.
'Cruise will be in London to promote his latest film when the BBC show comes back, but a source close to him said: 'Tom was not aware that Ross had been suspended because of his behaviour.
''Now that Tom has been told about the phone calls he is having second thoughts. He does not want to be involved in any controversy.'
'Other celebrities are said to be fed up with the irreverent way they have been treated by Ross when they have been interviewed by him'.
It almost goes without saying, Tom Cruise did appear on Ross' first show back. So when will the Mail remove its version...
The article claimed - entirely falsely, as it turned out - guests were reluctant to appear on his chat show after his Sachsgate suspension.
The Mail, in its anti-Ross frenzy, repeated the story on 13 January:
No doubt this was heavily borrowed from the original. It included this gem:'It has emerged that Tom Cruise, who has been lined up for Ross's comeback on January 23, is having 'second thoughts' - specifically because of the Sachs scandal.
'Cruise will be in London to promote his latest film when the BBC show comes back, but a source close to him said: 'Tom was not aware that Ross had been suspended because of his behaviour.
''Now that Tom has been told about the phone calls he is having second thoughts. He does not want to be involved in any controversy.'
'Other celebrities are said to be fed up with the irreverent way they have been treated by Ross when they have been interviewed by him'.
It almost goes without saying, Tom Cruise did appear on Ross' first show back. So when will the Mail remove its version...
Anti-Islam green inkers harangue BBC
MediaGuardian is reporting that the BBC has received 115 complaints about the appointment of Aaqil Ahmed to head of religious programming: 'It is understood the "vast majority" of the complaints are about Ahmed not being a Christian.'
The Mail must be delighted.
The Mail must be delighted.
Mail - not a fan of the Ghost Whisperer
The Mail's quite bizarre obsession with Jennifer Love Hewitt's weight rumbles on. In an article thin on content, but full of judgmental bitchiness, she is described as 'gaunt' with a 'waspy waist'. It goes on: 'Jennifer's famous bust seems to have shrunk, while her face looked drawn and cheekbones hollow...the actress looked a shadow of her former self.'
And as these pap shots were taken outside a Taco Bell, they add sarcastically, 'At least she's eating.'
Hewitt doesn't actually look much different to when she last appeared in the Mail - which was just over a month ago when they said she had 'lost too much weight'. So it's hard to see what's really behind this (non-) story.
But it gives them an opportunity to give the Hewitt bikini pics another airing. They say today: 'Her incredibly lean appearance was a far cry from this time last year, when unflattering bikini pictures of her emerged.'
Putting aside the fact those pics are actually 18 months old, is it any wonder that a woman who is mercilessly bullied for not being stick thin, then decides to lose some weight? And is it any surprise that the media then bully her for being too thin?
And as these pap shots were taken outside a Taco Bell, they add sarcastically, 'At least she's eating.'
Hewitt doesn't actually look much different to when she last appeared in the Mail - which was just over a month ago when they said she had 'lost too much weight'. So it's hard to see what's really behind this (non-) story.
But it gives them an opportunity to give the Hewitt bikini pics another airing. They say today: 'Her incredibly lean appearance was a far cry from this time last year, when unflattering bikini pictures of her emerged.'
Putting aside the fact those pics are actually 18 months old, is it any wonder that a woman who is mercilessly bullied for not being stick thin, then decides to lose some weight? And is it any surprise that the media then bully her for being too thin?
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Now migration makes the front page again
Here's today's Express. Two immediate reasons to believe the story isn't true. One, it's an immigration story on the front of the Express. Two, it begins with the word 'Now...'The story does refer to migrants, illegal immigrants and these same people are said to be 'flooding' into 'Greece to claim asylum in Britain', if that even makes sense. So there's some confusion over who these people are - if they even exist at all...
The claim is that a trafficking gang recently arrested in Paris has revealed how it took £10,000 in exchange for a fake passport, visa and a flight to Ireland, where the 'migrants' then moved into Northern Ireland and then got a ferry to Scotland or Liverpool.
(The Mail version says they 'fly into Britain', as if Ireland isn't a seperate country...)
Of course 'smuggling' sounds like something underhand and hidden, which would be hard to do if they were in 'club class'. But the phrase 'club class' isn't actually meant to mean that - as this story from 5 years ago shows - although the headline makes it sound like it is.
But there are further problems with the story. One is that it assumes that passport control in Ireland is so appalling all these fake passports are waved through without any question.
It also fails to give any accurate indication of how many people have actually made this journey. The implication in the way the story is written ('migrants from across Asia and the Middle East') is that it is loads. But the French say the gang smuggled maybe 150 people in total over the course of 9 months. The Express admits - deep into the story - while 'most went to Britain, while others chose to start new lives in Scandinavia and Canada,' a fact that has been deleted from later versions of the story on the Mail site.
The gang are said to have made £500,000, but if they were charging £10,000 for this 'club class' service, that would only mean 50 people smuggled. If they claim it's three times more than that, then that would suggest very few paid for the 'club class' passage.
The Express says the migrants paid £3,000 to go from Greece to Paris. If 150 people paid £3,000 to get to France, that is £450,000...so how many people did make the journey via Ireland?
In any case: 'The suspects have made full confessions in exchange for a reduction in prison sentences,' which suggests we shouldn't take all their claims as being totally credible.
Ditto the Express.
Gypsies smash up helicopter. Or maybe not.
Gypsies smash £5million police helicopter with axes in revenge for 'spy' flights, says the Mail. Gipsy axemen chop up cops' £5million chopper, reveals The Sun. Gypsies trash £5million police helicopter, adds the Telegraph.
Compare those headlines with those from the BBC (Vandals attack police helicopter) and the Get Surrey site Surrey Police helicopter grounded by vandals.
Notice the difference - and the interest from the right-wing papers in using race to identify the perpetrators?
The Mail claims the vandals caused 'tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage' although the BBC report - written two hours - later says: 'A force spokesman said...it was not yet known how much the damage would cost to repair.'
But there is something else that the Mail, Sun and Telegraph claim to know but which appears to be in some doubt. Three lines from the end of the story, the Mail writes: 'A Surrey Police spokesman said the identity of the mob members was 'unknown''.
'Unknown'? So how can the papers claim with such certainty in their headlines that those involved were Gypsies?
Compare those headlines with those from the BBC (Vandals attack police helicopter) and the Get Surrey site Surrey Police helicopter grounded by vandals.
Notice the difference - and the interest from the right-wing papers in using race to identify the perpetrators?
The Mail claims the vandals caused 'tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage' although the BBC report - written two hours - later says: 'A force spokesman said...it was not yet known how much the damage would cost to repair.'
But there is something else that the Mail, Sun and Telegraph claim to know but which appears to be in some doubt. Three lines from the end of the story, the Mail writes: 'A Surrey Police spokesman said the identity of the mob members was 'unknown''.
'Unknown'? So how can the papers claim with such certainty in their headlines that those involved were Gypsies?
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Stephen Glover talks total crap about Aaqil Ahmed
The intolerance shown by the Mail and its readers following the appointment of Aaqil Ahmed as head of religious programming at the BBC was noted here yesterday. Well, today it's spread to one of their columnists - not Mad Mel, but Stephen Glover.
Why can't the BBC understand that we are STILL a Christian country? he thunders in a rant to get Middle England trembling.
He says that the appointment is 'not a joke, I can assure you,' as if those impertinent Muslims shouldn't dare expect any publicly funded jobs.
He goes on: 'Let me say at once that I have nothing whatsoever against Mr Ahmed, who is, I am sure, an excellent broadcaster who may have much to contribute to the coverage of religion'.
Saying you have 'nothing against' someone is a clear indication that you do, and even that snide 'I am sure' is deeply unpleasant.
Then Glover shows us the depth of his research on Ahmed's CV: Some say that he has done a good job producing religious programmes in his present job at Channel 4, though he has been accused of intellectual shallowness, and last year some Roman Catholic priests alleged he had commissioned documentaries that appeared to contain a pro-Islam bias.
Glover produces this pathetically feeble piece of judgemental bullshit based on what he thinks 'some' people have thought, and then accuses someone else of shallowness?
'My quarrel is not so much with Mr Ahmed as with the BBC', he says, having just dismissed everything he has done.
But then Glover produces an argument so at odds with what he's writing, I'm (still) struggling to work it out. He writes:
Despite being required under its charter to provide religious programming, and despite being funded by licence-payers who overwhelmingly describe themselves as Christian, the Corporation has been increasingly pursuing what can only be, at best, described as a non-Christian agenda and, at worst, as an anti-Christian one. Do I exaggerate? I don’t believe so. Religious programming on the BBC has dwindled over the past ten years, and what remains is usually anodyne.
So the appointment of a Muslim as head of religious programming is an insult in a Christian country, and yet he admits that religious (by which he means Christian) programming at the BBC hasn't been much good for the last ten years. So what the hell is he worried about?
He admits that Ahmed's predecessor was a Methodist preacher. Glover says, based on no evidence at all, 'I imagine that having a Methodist preacher at the heart of the BBC was more than it could stomach'.
But Glover has just himself said that while this Methodist was in charge, the BBC was running an 'anti-Christian' agenda and 'anodyne' religious programmes. Yet Glover appears to think he should have kept his job. The contradictions here are so self-evident it leaves you speechless.
Towards the end he says: 'For all I know, Mr Ahmed may prove himself remarkably sympathetic to the sensibilities of Christians in his new job. One cannot, however, count on that, and it is interesting that he has said there should be more coverage of Muslim matters in the media'.
For all he knows? He doesn't appear to know very much at all. As mentioned yesterday, Ahmed commissioned the eight, hour-long programmes entitled Christianity: A History, a series the Mail was happy to plug at the time.
The idea that Christians are capable of producing programmes on other faiths but Muslims are not ('one cannot...count on that') is frighteningly intolerant.
And when there is the kind of ignorance and scaremongering about Muslims that Glover is indulging in here, and which his paper does almost every day, more coverage telling some truths about Muslims wouldn't be a bad idea.
Why can't the BBC understand that we are STILL a Christian country? he thunders in a rant to get Middle England trembling.
He says that the appointment is 'not a joke, I can assure you,' as if those impertinent Muslims shouldn't dare expect any publicly funded jobs.
He goes on: 'Let me say at once that I have nothing whatsoever against Mr Ahmed, who is, I am sure, an excellent broadcaster who may have much to contribute to the coverage of religion'.
Saying you have 'nothing against' someone is a clear indication that you do, and even that snide 'I am sure' is deeply unpleasant.
Then Glover shows us the depth of his research on Ahmed's CV: Some say that he has done a good job producing religious programmes in his present job at Channel 4, though he has been accused of intellectual shallowness, and last year some Roman Catholic priests alleged he had commissioned documentaries that appeared to contain a pro-Islam bias.
Glover produces this pathetically feeble piece of judgemental bullshit based on what he thinks 'some' people have thought, and then accuses someone else of shallowness?
'My quarrel is not so much with Mr Ahmed as with the BBC', he says, having just dismissed everything he has done.
But then Glover produces an argument so at odds with what he's writing, I'm (still) struggling to work it out. He writes:
Despite being required under its charter to provide religious programming, and despite being funded by licence-payers who overwhelmingly describe themselves as Christian, the Corporation has been increasingly pursuing what can only be, at best, described as a non-Christian agenda and, at worst, as an anti-Christian one. Do I exaggerate? I don’t believe so. Religious programming on the BBC has dwindled over the past ten years, and what remains is usually anodyne.
So the appointment of a Muslim as head of religious programming is an insult in a Christian country, and yet he admits that religious (by which he means Christian) programming at the BBC hasn't been much good for the last ten years. So what the hell is he worried about?
He admits that Ahmed's predecessor was a Methodist preacher. Glover says, based on no evidence at all, 'I imagine that having a Methodist preacher at the heart of the BBC was more than it could stomach'.
But Glover has just himself said that while this Methodist was in charge, the BBC was running an 'anti-Christian' agenda and 'anodyne' religious programmes. Yet Glover appears to think he should have kept his job. The contradictions here are so self-evident it leaves you speechless.
Towards the end he says: 'For all I know, Mr Ahmed may prove himself remarkably sympathetic to the sensibilities of Christians in his new job. One cannot, however, count on that, and it is interesting that he has said there should be more coverage of Muslim matters in the media'.
For all he knows? He doesn't appear to know very much at all. As mentioned yesterday, Ahmed commissioned the eight, hour-long programmes entitled Christianity: A History, a series the Mail was happy to plug at the time.
The idea that Christians are capable of producing programmes on other faiths but Muslims are not ('one cannot...count on that') is frighteningly intolerant.
And when there is the kind of ignorance and scaremongering about Muslims that Glover is indulging in here, and which his paper does almost every day, more coverage telling some truths about Muslims wouldn't be a bad idea.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Predictable outrage at the Mail as Muslim gets religious job
When I read the news that the BBC had appointed a Muslim as head of religious programming last night, I envisaged the outrage that would be shown by the Mail and its readers.
And they really are that predictable.
This appointment apparently means - according to Peter Jones in Amersham - that: 'This entire organization is rotten to the core and should be shut down with immediate effect.'
Other comments include: 'I've just torn up my TV licence', 'Obviously,' and 'Sounds just about right for lunatic left bbc.' All these get massive positive scores. Even the comment 'No comment!!!!' gets +137.
Whereas 'I'm sure he will do a good job', 'I don't see what the problem is,' and 'I don't really understand your objections to this since the BBC has said he was the best candidate for the job' all get hugely negative reactions (-300 and worse).
The Mail do point out that Aaqil Ahmed had recently commissioned the series Christianity: A History on Channel 4. But they don't go on to tell any views from the man himself - they are more interested in the views of Christians about this appointment. But of the Chritianity series, Ahmed described it like this:
Christianity: A History is the biggest project I have commissioned during my time at Channel 4. It’s almost unheard of for a mainstream broadcaster to dedicate eight hours of prime time television to Christianity in this way. I think it’s fair to say that it’s a big risk, but a risk I really wanted to take.
So in what ways is this a 'controversial first' as the Mail headline has it? Well, it isn't at all really. I say good luck to him.
And they really are that predictable.
This appointment apparently means - according to Peter Jones in Amersham - that: 'This entire organization is rotten to the core and should be shut down with immediate effect.'
Other comments include: 'I've just torn up my TV licence', 'Obviously,' and 'Sounds just about right for lunatic left bbc.' All these get massive positive scores. Even the comment 'No comment!!!!' gets +137.
Whereas 'I'm sure he will do a good job', 'I don't see what the problem is,' and 'I don't really understand your objections to this since the BBC has said he was the best candidate for the job' all get hugely negative reactions (-300 and worse).
The Mail do point out that Aaqil Ahmed had recently commissioned the series Christianity: A History on Channel 4. But they don't go on to tell any views from the man himself - they are more interested in the views of Christians about this appointment. But of the Chritianity series, Ahmed described it like this:
Christianity: A History is the biggest project I have commissioned during my time at Channel 4. It’s almost unheard of for a mainstream broadcaster to dedicate eight hours of prime time television to Christianity in this way. I think it’s fair to say that it’s a big risk, but a risk I really wanted to take.
So in what ways is this a 'controversial first' as the Mail headline has it? Well, it isn't at all really. I say good luck to him.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Finally?
The Daily Mail writes: The Simpsons' baby Maggie finally talks... and she sounds a lot like Jodie Foster.
Simpsons' fans may already know where this is going. But the last line of the story explains: Maggie had spoken in a previous episode, when Elizabeth Taylor provided her voice as she said 'Daddy'.
Right. So she hasn't 'finally' spoken then.
Simpsons' fans may already know where this is going. But the last line of the story explains: Maggie had spoken in a previous episode, when Elizabeth Taylor provided her voice as she said 'Daddy'.Right. So she hasn't 'finally' spoken then.
Star pulls on its jackboots
The Daily Star continues to give a propaganda boost to certain patriotic English (ahem) groups in Luton. They are reporting that an anti-extremist demo has been given the go-ahead 'in protest at Muslim hatemongers trying to split Britain.'
This is in response to the dozen infamous publicity-hungry loudmouths who picketed the soldier's homecoming parade in the town. How this very small group are going to 'split Britain' isn't very clear. But the sympathetic language for the 'anti-extremists' is very telling. The story goes on to say:
Which of course makes them seem very kindly. But a look at their website or Myspace page shows a preponderance of imagery that seem to point in one direction - lions, lots of red and white - and protestations that they aren't racist. Why do they feel the need to do that?
Well, because they link to the websites of their 'friends' Lionheart and Tabloid UK, a site which seems to re-print every anti-immigrant story from the tabloids without critical comment. One of their friends on Myspace is a full of praise for the BNP. Most of their friends on Myspace and Facebook appear to be white.
They say (their caps):
But they follow that by saying immigration has 'ruined..our country' and is 'threatening our country’s identity'.
Back to the Star and the story continues:
Banning terrorists is not really a hugely controversial line to take (only 1,500 signatures for that?), but the use of the word 'inspiration' again makes it clear where the Star's sympathies lie.
This is in response to the dozen infamous publicity-hungry loudmouths who picketed the soldier's homecoming parade in the town. How this very small group are going to 'split Britain' isn't very clear. But the sympathetic language for the 'anti-extremists' is very telling. The story goes on to say:
The rally is organised by March For England, which previously led similar campaigns on Baby P and Gurkhas’ rights.
Which of course makes them seem very kindly. But a look at their website or Myspace page shows a preponderance of imagery that seem to point in one direction - lions, lots of red and white - and protestations that they aren't racist. Why do they feel the need to do that?
Well, because they link to the websites of their 'friends' Lionheart and Tabloid UK, a site which seems to re-print every anti-immigrant story from the tabloids without critical comment. One of their friends on Myspace is a full of praise for the BNP. Most of their friends on Myspace and Facebook appear to be white.
They say (their caps):
WE ARE NOT A RACIST GROUP NOR DO WE CONDONE ANY RACISM, NOR ARE WE AFFILIATED WITH ANY RACIST GROUP.
But they follow that by saying immigration has 'ruined..our country' and is 'threatening our country’s identity'.
Back to the Star and the story continues:
Rally inspiration Wayne King’s Ban The Terrorists group has a 1,500-strong petition which it plans to present to Luton’s mayor Lakhbir Singh.
Banning terrorists is not really a hugely controversial line to take (only 1,500 signatures for that?), but the use of the word 'inspiration' again makes it clear where the Star's sympathies lie.
Is it cuz he is black?
Like the Express, the Star also has the same, intrusive Tesco ad on the front page. Richard Desmond must be coining it in.But the story (and for once, they appear to have accurately reported what has been said elsewhere) is framed in a strange way. After all, would the headline have ever been written as 'White Prem ace held in 'race abuse' attack' if the attacker was white? The answer, of course, is no.
So why is do they feel it relevant to highlight that the attacker was 'black' here?
Express totally gives up on reporting news
There are several noticeable things about today's Express front page. One is that it has a unusually large advert for Tesco at the bottom - it is very rare for there to be ads on the front of a tabloid - but I can recall one that dominant. (ignoring the Express' feeble wrap-around on the day after Obama's inauguration).Two is the total lack of a mention of the MP expenses fiasco. Surely it couldn't be that the day the details of the greed of Tory MPs come out, the most vocally Tory-supporting paper wants to forget the story? The Express put it on the front page for the last two days, when it was Labour greed being revealed. (The main story on the Tories amounts to only 283 words)
Thirdly, the story itself. Secret of how to beat cancer is a standard Express health headline. And like most of them, the story is pretty thin. The 'secret' turns out to be that one way to beat cancer would be to lose weight.
Yes, at the Express, a story along the lines of 'being fat is not good for your health' is considered front page news. And almost deserving of as much space as a Tesco ad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
