Mail puts Kim Kardashian into Letterman story

The news that David Letterman has confessed to affairs with female employees after a blackmail attempt has been covered by all the papers. For example the Guardian, Times, Sun, Express and Star:























All much the same. Because it's a story about Letterman you get a picture of Letterman. The Mail decides to play it a little differently:

And who is that woman in the pic with Letterman?

It's Kim Kardashian!

The Mail website really is obsessed with her. After four days since her last appearance, it was about time she was back.

Littlejohn makes up another dog story

As Jonathan points out in his excellent post, today's Littlejohn column is dismal.

The main rant is about how he wanted to get mad at something he thought would happen, but which didn't. Yes, really. He dedicates 949 sodding words to how his recycling wasn't collected one day, and when he phoned the Council, they said they'd come and get it. How dare those evil Bin Nazis!

But the biggest cock-up of the day comes when he turns his attention to dogs. Of course, we know Littlejohn has had problems with researching dog related stories before.

This time, it's another of his entirely invented PC-gone-mad police stories:

The increasingly absurd Devon and Cornwall force has started replacing their German shepherds with springer spaniels, which are said to be 'less frightening'.

Isn't frightening the whole point of police dogs?

But as Jonathan makes clear, only a cursory use of Google can find out how true this is (clue: it isn't). The springer spaniels in question are rescue dogs. This news was up on the BBC website on Tuesday, so there can be no excuse that he hasn't done his research (again). Indeed, why not congratulate them on being:

the first in the country to train dogs solely for use in search and rescue operations.

To quote Jonathan:

And so, after upwards of 26 seconds of reading the BBC's less rabid account, I finally get a glimpse of the truth...these dogs will literally only be used to rescue people and find people who have gone missing, like for example lost children, with the old big dogs used for everything else. Meaning that they're not being 'replaced' either.

Well done Richard. Expect a clarification in Tuesday's column.

He turns to politics, and mentions the fact Sarah Brown had introduced her husband at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. Littlejohn says:

In keeping with the latest political fad, I had thought of asking my wife to introduce the column this week.

Which sounds like a good idea. She can't be any worse, surely?

This piece includes a mention of Peter Mandelson's partner:

at least we were spared Reinaldo's version of how Mandy makes a mess in the bathroom when he's dyeing his hair.

Just in case you had forgotten Mandelson was gay. Something Littlejohn hasn't mentioned since 15 September.

The 'stuck record' effect also occurs when he refers to Gordon Brown who, he says:

flogged off our gold at car-boot sale prices a few years ago

Hmm - does that phrase sound familiar? Because back in June, he wrote an imaginary interview where Brown was asked:

Do you regret selling Britain's gold reserves at car-boot sale prices?

And then in March about how:

Gordon Brown would be convicted of criminal negligence for selling off Britain's gold reserves at car-boot-sale prices.

In February, he changed it slightly, to:

sold off Britain's precious gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

And in November 2008 Brown was:

wanted in connection with the disappearance of billions of pounds' worth of Britain's gold bullion

At the end of September 2008, he wrote about:

Gordon Brown, who sold off Britain's gold reserves for brass washers, costing us billions

That was just a few weeks after he mentioned - and stop me if you've heard it - that Brown:

decided we didn't need our gold reserves any more and sold them off at car-boot sale prices.

And back in March 2008:

his decision to flog off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

So now we know Littlejohn does do recycling. In many more ways than putting bottles outside his house.

Mail doesn't apologise to Dale and denies homophobia

As mentioned by Jamie at the Daily Quail, it appeared that Peter McKay had apologised to Iain Dale over yesterday's Ephraim Hardcastle piece. But Dale now says that was in fact a hoax. Instead we have a follow-up comment in the Hardcastle column today:

Tory blogger Iain Dale complains about an item here yesterday. I mentioned that Dale, who is gay, is hoping to become the Tory candidate at Bracknell, Berkshire, and invited subscribers to PinkNews, the homosexual website, to attend the open primary on October 17, saying: 'You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.' Dale says my comment - 'Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally likeminded chaps to their cause?' - is homophobic, as is my description of him as 'overtly gay'. He has complained to the Press Complaints Commission, and suggested his readers email complaints. I have nothing against Dale. Nor am I homophobic. But if he wants to become an MP, surely he'll have to become a little less sensitive. Incidentally, the Tories are having their first gay pride event at their Manchester conference next week. They'll promote a new 'gay-friendly' logo, Conservative Pride. Isn't life grand?

The question for McKay/Hardcastle, if he wants to deny homophobia, is this: would you have referred to straight people 'rallying likeminded chaps to the cause?'

Answer: almost certainly not.

He might also want to get a job on a different newspaper.

Recommended reads

Anton has asked - what exactly is the Mail's bizarre, stalker-like obsession with Natalie Cassidy?

Uponnothing points out that a story about immigrant birds being shot brings out the true character of Mail readers.

Iain Dale shocked at homophobia in the Mail

Sarah at Paperhouse has posted on an ugly item in today's Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Mail. It focuses on blogger and would-be Conservative Parliamentary Candidate Iain Dale. 'Hardcastle' writes:

Overtly gay Tory blogger Iain Dale has reached the final stage of parliamentary selection for Bracknell, telling PinkNews: 'I hope any PinkNews readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate.

You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.'

Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Dale writes:

I am damned if I am going to stay silent when I see a national newspaper indulge in a homophobic attack on me. A year ago, the Richard Kay column in the Daily Mail printed a fairly vile column about my civil partnership - full of innuendo and just plain nastiness. Today, the Ephraim Hardcastle column goes one better.

He has fired off a letter to the PCC, although that is unlikely to get him very far. But Dale then writes something which shows a rather bizarre naivety, stating:

I really thought that we had got away from this sort of thing and it's very sad that we haven't.

Did he really think that? For example, the Mail has twice attacked attempts to counter homophobic bullying. It has suggested young girls experimenting with same-sex kissing is a sign of an approaching apocalypse. It has Littlejohn continually referring to Screaming Lord Mandy and Peter Hitchens claiming We show tolerance to ‘gays’ and get tyranny in return.

And there are plenty of times when the Sun indulges in homophobia, such as with stories about George Michael, H from Steps and Boy George.

Dale writes:

worst of all, if I did say nothing, it would just encourage them to do it again to someone else in the future. I simply cannot do that.

Hmm. So why did only feel the need to complain about tabloid homophobia when he became the target?

Mail and Sun try to influence election; Sun tries to influence this blog

The lead story on the Mail website for most of yesterday was a very strange interpretation of an interview between Gordon Brown and Adam Boulton. Neither side emerged from the counter that well, but the Mail saw a bigger story:


Obviously a incident where the PM huffs out of an interview with a major broadcaster would be a big story. There's just one slight problem.

He didn't.

The Boulton & Co blog on the Sky website includes the line:

One man's "storming off" is another man's "getting up because it's over"...

Which immediately raises doubts about the veracity of the Mail interpretation. Watching the nearly twelve minute interview on the Sky blog reveals - shock of shocks - Brown doesn't try to leave at any point. The clip ends with Boulton saying:

Thank you very much Gordon Brown.

And Brown is still in his seat. Conservative blogger Guido Fawkes has posted part of what happened next on Youtube, complete with a juvenile Psycho sound effect. But it shows Brown remaining seated for a full three seconds before moving to get up.

So how does the Mail decide he 'cut the interview short' or:


He tried to leave once it was over. End of (non-) story.

Elsewhere, News International is clearly trying to set the agenda for the general election. During the interview, Boulton pressed Brown on Sky News' Leaders' Debate. Then yesterday the Sun revealed - to absolutely no-one's surprise - that it was backing the Conservatives to win the next election. These seem to be 'good' examples of where the media is trying to make the news - make itself the news - rather than just report the news.

Bizarrely, this blog received two emails (within 30 minutes of each other) from The Sun revealing the news about its change of allegiance in the early hours of 29 September. It even included a jpeg of the front page for inclusion. Why it would bother alerting a blog which has rarely written a good word about the paper is a bit of a mystery.

The Sun editorial writes about the:

failures of Labour in Government over the last 12 years.

Given the Sun backed Labour at the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, complaining about all twelve years seems a little...conveniently forgetful.

Inevitably, in listing Labour's failings, it mentions immigration, where they are accused of:

opening our borders without any regard to the consequences. Illegal migrants and bogus asylum seekers poured in.

The terminology here is very loose - 'illegal immigrants' and 'failed asylum seekers' would be far more suitable, but this sentence, which also includes the word 'poured', is designed to be highly emotive, rather than accurate.

The Guardian's Michael White points out that Rupert Murdoch does have a 'well-documented policy of being on the winning side' and with opinion polls putting the Conservatives well ahead, it was only a matter of when, not if, The Sun switched sides.

But even more importantly for David Cameron, he has the support of another key Sun figure, far more influential than Murdoch.

Yes, Page 3 girl Keeley (22, from Bromley, dressed in her blue pants for this special occasion) is backing him too:

[He] is the man...this is his time. Everyone will expect him to make things better. He can't possibly do this instantly as he will inherit huge, long-term, deep-rooted problems. We need to allow him time to implement fresh ideas and policies that will get the country off its knees.

Brilliant. With insight like that, she could get a reporting job at the paper.

Recommended reading on HPV vaccine

Lots of excellent blog posts about the scandalous coverage of the HPV vaccine (as it should be called, rather than 'cervical cancer vaccine'). The Mail, as with MMR, has been at the forefront of the shameful, groundless scaremongering.

Malcolm Coles has been rating the irresponsibility of the media from yesterday and today.

Good posts also from Jamie and Anton.

Old letter writing racist influenced by the Mail

It has been noted here before that Mail stories turn up on the BNP website with few changes and last week the Star was recruiting for the English Defence League. The link between the tabloids and the rise of far-right groups seems undeniable.

Now the Guardian is reporting this:

Police are hunting an elderly letter writer responsible for sending more than 50 racially abusive letters to people across the country, including the prime minister.

The letters, some sexually explicit in content, have been sent to schools, hospitals, mosques, universities, doctors' surgeries and private individuals, leaving some recipients "extremely distressed".

According to Hampshire police, which is heading the investigation, the letters are all pro-English in content and racially inflammatory, with many appearing to have been sent in response to Daily Mail articles. All the letters are offensive and racist against a wide variety of nationalities and cultures...Clippings from the Daily Mail have been included in many envelopes.

Some of the letters are just about readable on the Times website.

Littlejohn supports abuse of returns policy, wonders why shop changes rules

Last Friday, as pointed out by Uponnothing, Richard Littlejohn wrote a 'hilarious' imaginary discussion between a dumb American and a British person called Brit (I know, it's too much) about Gordon Brown, the Special Relationship and Baroness Scotland.

It included the American being bamboozled about an unelected, appointed Attorney General. The American says:

What a cockamamie country. They'd never get away with it in America.

Except, of course, they do. The Attorney General is appointed by the President.

He then goes on to ask why the relationship between Brown and Barack Obama had deteriorated (if it even has...). The response:

Because President Brown released the terrorist who murdered 270 U.S. citizens in the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.

Really? Maybe Littlejohn hadn't noticed the SNP are in charge in Scotland now. He can just make it up!

Incidentally, if any of this 'dumb American Chad talking to British journo Brit about unelected President Norman Brown from Scotlandland on the eve of his visit to America' sounds familiar, it is. He used the exact same ruse (and jokes) back in April 2008.

Back to today, and Littlejohn drags out several of his favourite cliches including 'Mind how you go' and 'com-pen-say-shun'. The Transgendered Police Association get another mention. Of course, they're actually called the National Trans Police Association, but you can't expect Littlejohn to get anything everything right.

He also writes about the 'news' that Marks and Spencer have withdrawn their 90 day returns policy in favour of a 35 day one. The fact that this changed back in April but has only made headlines in the last few days says plenty about how 'controversial' (as Littlejohn refers to it) this really is.

He says:

I doubt whether many people wait the best part of three months before taking something back

but thinks it should remain a three month limit anyway. Brilliant.

And then he comes out with a classic bit of Littlejohn (non-)thinking which just leaves you baffled:

My mum swore by Marks & Sparks, largely because she could buy a frock on Friday, wear it to a dinner-dance on Saturday and take it back on Monday morning, no questions asked.

Does it really not occur to him that people abusing the returns policy, like his mum apparently did, may well be responsible for the change?

And because it was his mum doing that, it's totally legitimate:

The money she spent elsewhere in the store more than made up for her free dress hire.

Really? Well that's OK then. One of the comments people put it best:

Brilliant. Your old mum defrauds M&S and she's a plucky old gel, no harm guv, strike a light, it's just the blitz spirit! But a dog with five puppies is automatically on benefits...

What would your attitude be if it was an asylum seeker doing the M&S dodge?

Do you actually THINK about this 'journalism'?

- Paco, Madrid, 29/9/2009 8:44

I think we all know the answer to that.

More breaking news from the Express

Currently the fifth story in the UK News section of the Express website:
This is the second time in a week the Express has run an advertising feature in the 'news' section.

Clearly, Richard Desmond hasn't learnt anything about mixing advertising and editorial.

Europe spies! Well, it may spy! At some point! Exclusive!

Here is today's Express front page:
The meaning couldn't be more clear: Europe has spied on your pay and savings. It is spying on your pay and savings.

Then the first line of the story:

EU snoopers are pressing for sinister new powers to spy on every taxpayer in Britain, the Daily Express can reveal today.

Oh. They haven't got the powers yet? They aren't currently spying? So that headline is totally misleading?

No. No. Yes.

It also represents another interesting use of the term:

the Daily Express can reveal today.

Last time they tried to claim that they were exclusively revealing something, it turned out the same documents had been on a government website for over two months.

So a quick Google of the world Eurofisc - the name of this scheme - shows that there were several news stories about it in the business media around 18 August, when the scheme was actually announced.

So just one month old - rather than two - this time. Still, one month old front page news is still an improvement on all the twelve year old Diana stories.

Eurofisc - which the Express calls 'sinister' - has been proposed as a measure to cut VAT fraud, which is claimed to run to 200 billion Euros across Europe per year. Sinister indeed.

But when the Express relies on quotes from the TaxPayers' Alliance, a famously anti-Europe Tory MP, a Tory MEP and a UKIP MEP, you can be sure the proposal is not going to get a fair hearing.

Emotive - and incredibly cliched - terms such as 'snoopers', 'bureaucrats' and 'faceless officials' (is that literally officials with no faces?) are all thrown into the mix too.

In any case, the scheme needs a unanimous vote of approval from all 27 EU members. The EuObserver and EurActiv both say national governments may well be unwilling to agree to the scheme as a whole. So not only is that headline not currently true, it may never be true.

For the Express, that's no longer surprising.

Some questions for the Mail on Sunday

Firstly - why is it that in your eyes, every illegal immigrant is a lying, deceptive, criminal or would-be terrorist, except this one? Is it just because this one might bring down a member of the government?

Second - why don't all illegal immigrants in your paper get photographed in nice gardens and backlit with sunshine, like this one?

Third - why don't other illegal immigrants get referrred to as 'pretty' and 'clearly bright'?

Four - what exactly is the financial arrangement between you, Max Clifford and Loloahi Tapui? Surely the Mail on Sunday hasn't been giving money to an illegal immigrant?

Five - Is the Mail on Sunday worried that other would-be illegal immigrants might see British newspapers as a soft-touch in the wake of this arrangement brokered by Clifford, and this will in fact attract more illegal immigrants who imagine an easy life living off the over generous system of British tabloid chequebook journalism?

Richard Desmond and the far-right

Many thanks to Claude at Hagley Road to Ladywood for highlighting a recent Daily Star article which seemed little more than a recruiting ad for the English Defence League (EDL).

Or make that 'ads' because this began a day earlier than first noted.

On Wednesday 23 September the Star ran this:
(Pic found online, the original article has been removed but a cached version is here)

The headline stands out immediately. Could it be any more sympathetic? It's as if the Star thinks this band of suspiciously balaclava-clad men are simply misunderstood innocents.

Of course, if a Muslim woman went around with her face covered the Star would be the first to say they're up to no good. Like the 96% of Star readers who demanded the burkha be banned back in June. And when Star reporter Richard Peppiatt dressed in a burkha for a day, he came to the conclusion:

if you can’t share a smile with a stranger, then what chance do we have of living together in harmony?

But that doesn't apply to the EDL, apparently.

The main pic shows them burning a swastika flag to 'prove' they aren't fascists or Nazis.

Quite how putting on a balaclava and setting fire to something is meant to improve their image is a mystery, but the Star is doing its best to help them.

The article includes a series of quotes from an anonymous EDL spokesman, which begins with a 'some of our best friends...'-type statement:

'We are not racist. We’ve made this film with our black members, and we also welcome any moderate Muslims.'

There isn't much in the way of a counter-argument, save for two sentences, at the end, by a spokesman from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

And then there's the Star poll, which asks 'Has the English Defence League got it right?' eventhough it's not immediately obvious what 'it' is.

The EDL say they are merely 'peacefully protesting against militant Islam' and highlighting 'unrestrained extremist Islam in the UK.'

But watch this video from the recent EDL march in Birmingham, which begins with a deliberately offensive and provocative chant about Allah, and later one man repeatedly shouts 'I hate Pakis more than you'. Another skinhead is seen doing a Nazi salute and elsewhere a placard reading 'No more mosques' was wielded.

Claims from the EDL that they are not anti-Islam, or racist, are clearly not to be believed.

(See also Unite Against Fascism, Jason Parkinson, and Richard Bartholomew's post on one of the EDL's videos, a video which 5CC also wrote about in terms of their use of tabloid headlines.)

On their website homepage they have a short film about an upcoming march and you can tell how extremist they are because Melanie Phillips pops up in it.

Anyway, back to the Star and on Thursday, the results of their poll were announced - 99% of readers agreed that the EDL has 'got it right'.

So the Star and its readers are totally supporting this vile behaviour.

This was accompanied by another full page feature on the group:
(Again, pic found online)

This second article - like the first - was made up of little more than unedited, uninterrupted EDL spokesman quotes, with a token line at the end from Unite Against Fascism.

This was accompanied by yet another poll asking 'Should the EDL become a recognised political party?' Why would the Star be asking that? I don't know what the results were but it was probably an overwhelming 'yes'.

The headline takes the EDL's claim that 'All colours and creeds are backing crusade' as unquestionably accurate, although narrows it down to 'Muslims' support' online. The story states:

The English Defence League last night claimed it had been swamped with messages of support from all races... The EDL, which claims it is defending British values against Muslim extremism, received hundreds of new registrations and postings on its website.

The anonymous EDL spokesman says:

We’ve had Sikhs, Hindus, black people, Jews and even Muslims contacting us.

Of course, 'contacting' them doesn't mean supporting them. They might have been telling the EDL where to shove their Nazi salutes.

But that claim about 'hundreds of new registrations' raises an eyebrow - why would the EDL have this sudden surge of interest?

The EDL spokesman explains:

The article about our activities has produced an amazing response.

Really? So the EDL claims to have boosted its support thanks to sympathetic coverage in the Daily Star.

They must be so proud.

This nasty, racist national 'newspaper' has long flirted with the far-right and taken the line that England is under siege from foreigners. It has a completely anti-minority agenda. There have been front pages which have taken an 'us and them' line more blatantly than any other paper.

And its sister paper the Express is sticking BNP slogans on its cover the same day as the first EDL article appeared in the Star.

Is Richard Desmond now just running recruiting rags for the far-right?

Mail on Sunday interviews Muslim woman, eventhough they have already decided she's lying

Today, the Mail on Sunday has given the 'other side of the story' in the case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang - the couple being prosecuted under public order laws following an exchange with a Muslim guest at their hotel.

Last week the Mail on Sunday - in its story and editorial - very firmly sided with the Vogelenzangs, and Littlejohn followed suit in his Tuesday column, despite all of them admitting they didn't know what was said.

But obviously the Muslim, being a Muslim, wasn't to be believed.

Now they have reported some statements by sixty-year old Ericka Tazi:

'I am no fanatic, as people have tried to make me out to be...

I am a Warrington girl through and through. I loved The Beatles and all the things an ordinary English girl enjoys. I used to go to the Cavern Club. I was brought up a staunch Catholic and only turned to Islam about a year ago'.

Which is weird because the impression given last week was that this was some extremist immigrant. And then a little more on the incident itself:

'I have embraced the religion and always try to wear the hijab. It gives me peace and satisfies me spiritually.'

Mrs Tazi said when she first went to the Bounty House Hotel she decided not to wear the hijab because she did not want to stand out. But during her treatment for the debilitating illness fibromyalgia she decided to follow her beliefs.

She said: 'It was the last morning, and I decided to wear what I was comfortable in. I went downstairs and was utterly shocked by the reaction of the hotel owners. They became nasty and all but called me a terrorist.'

Of course, we still don't know exactly what was said. The couple's spokesman reject Tazi's version, claiming they:

deny saying or implying that Mrs Tazi was a terrorist.

The problem with the reaction of the Mail and Littlejohn is that it gives the impression it doesn't really matter what happened - they took against the Muslim, because she was a Muslim. And that implies you can say whatever you want about Muslims, and they'll defend your right to free speech.

But if you are a Muslim exercising your right to free speech - as in Luton - you're not to be defended in the same way.

Then there is a more revealing quote still from Tazi:

'Since it hit the newspapers, I have been too afraid to go out. All sorts of Right-wing groups are commenting on their websites.

'I am really afraid. I just can't understand it. There seems to be so much hatred out there.'

If you Google the name 'Vogelenzang' you can see for yourself this is true. The EDL have it as the main news story on their homepage under the headline:

It is official, you will now be arrested for debating or questioning Islam!

The BNP reported on the story too, writing:

Britain’s plunge into a fully fledged Islamic state has been underlined again...The heavy-handed police action has once again highlighted the state’s subservience to the Islamification process.

Whatever happens in the case hardly matters. The Mail newspapers have let this story run for a week before giving the other side of the story and it has taken root as another mythical 'Muslim take-over of Britain' story.

But the personal angle is the even more damning. If Mrs Tazi is 'really afraid' and 'too scared to go out' because of the coverage then the Mail on Sunday, the Mail and Littlejohn should be ashamed.

If only they knew how to be.

Six apologies in three days

From yesterday's Sun, an apology - and £10,000 damages - to Lily Allen:

In May we reported in Bizarre that Lily Allen had made various offensive remarks about David and Victoria Beckham and Ashley and Cheryl Cole in an interview with a magazine.

We now accept that Lily didn't say these things to the magazine and we apologise to Lily for the upset and embarrassment caused by repeating them.

The day before, on Thursday 24 September, the Evening Standard and Mail dished out an apology and 'substantial' payout to Metropolitan police commander Ali Dizaei after they claimed he was a bigamist in June 2008:

In an article published on 21 June 2008, we reported the results of a search from the Principal Registry of the Family Division that there was no record of a divorce between Ali Dizaei and Natalie Downing. In fact, Decree Absolute had been obtained in July 2005, two years before his marriage to Shahameh Dizaei, but due to an error of the court the divorce was not registered centrally. We are happy to clarify the position and apologise to all concerned.

That came a day after the Sun apologised over the hit list story and both the Mail (and News of the World) had apologised and paid out to England's football coach Fabio Capello over an invasion of privacy.

The Mail's role in the Capello story is particularly interesting, as explained in the Independent. The Capellos were on holiday and had noticed lots of photographers sniffing around. He contacted the Football Association (FA) which in turn spoke to the PCC, who issued a statement to all editors that publication of any pictures of the Capellos would be considered a breach of privacy.

The News of the World decided to ignore that and publish seven photos a few days later. The FA weren't impressed, and got onto the PCC. The pics were soon removed from the paper's website.

On Sunday afternoon, the FA sent a further letter, as the Indy explains:

The FA then wrote to newspapers and broadcasters to "formally request all other media do not use these photographs and respect the Capellos' right to privacy set out by the PCC". It pointed out that: "Fabio Capello and the FA could not have been clearer from the moment he commenced his role in January 2008 that he wants to enjoy a professional working relationship with the media, but he considers his private life and his family private."

But the Mail decided to ignore all that and printed some of the pictures on page three of its Monday edition. Why did it think pictures of Mrs Capello taking a mudbath of any interest to its readers at all? But more importantly, why did the Mail think it was above a warning from the PCC? Does the Mail really treat the PCC with such disdain?