When not to use the word 'suicide'

This week we have had the suicide of Kevin McGee, the two teenagers who jumped to their deaths from a bridge, and the attempted suicide of the husband of a convicted paedophile.

Therefore, for the Daily Mail to use the word 'suicide' in a headline about the Royal Mail seems stupid, inappropriate and hyberbolic. And in very poor taste.

Not that that headline would be acceptable if those other events hadn't happened.

But it's interesting to note the word is entirely absent from the website version of the story - including from the headline.

Littlejohn unreservedly apologises for making it up

On 14 August, this blog highlighted a statement made by Richard Littlejohn that was not only bullshit, but inflammatory bullshit. As it has now been removed from the website, here it is:


So in the very same column that he wrote:

I merely report the facts

He also wrote:

Most robberies in this country have been carried out by Eastern European gangs.

Hmm. A reader of this blog wrote to Littlejohn and asked him what his evidence for this claim might be. Inevitably, he didn't get a reply. In his next column, Littlejohn mentioned several reader emails which were sympathetic to his agenda. But ignored one challenging him.

After waiting a week for a reply that never came, an email of complaint was sent to the PCC.

It said:

I believe this statement not only clearly violates the first line of the Code of Practice that 'Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information', it also ignores the PCC guidance note on reporting on Refugees and Asylum Seekers which warns about: 'the danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts'.

It is very hard to disagree with that assessment.

As 5CC pointed out in comments here, the figures show that in the first half of 2007, the Met Police had Eastern European perpertrators for 34 out of 4,508 robberies - 0.75%.

Obviously that is a only six month period in one area of the country but there is simply no way that could translate into 'most'.

So it was not only wrong, but more importantly, it links Eastern Europeans - immigrants - to a crime wave that doesn't exist.

And what was the Daily Mail's response?

Err, well there wasn't one. The complaint was made on 21 August. The PCC did not receive a response from the Mail until 30 September.

A few weeks ago, this blog asked if the Mail treats the PCC with disdain after it ignored warnings from the regulator about printing holiday pictures of Fabio Capello and his wife.

If it takes close to six weeks to respond to a complaint from a member of the public on a serious error spewed out by their 'star' columnist, the answer is clearly 'yes'. The Mail doesn't give a toss.

The complainant contacted the PCC on 15 and 21 September, and the case worker chased the Mail after each. But it wasn't until the complainant chased the PCC again on 30 September that a reply came.

Is it any wonder people do not bother complaining when it takes so much effort (five emails, including the one to Littlejohn) to get a response?

After all that time, the Mail did not come up with anything exceptional. The email from Charles Garside, Assistant Editor of the Mail, suggests that the paper had been desperately looking around for evidence to back up the claim. Having failed to find any (obviously) Littlejohn was asked to pen an apology, which read:

A couple of months ago, after a Mayfair jewellery heist, I joked that it was heartening to see good old British blaggers making a comeback. For too long, they had been beaten at their own game by Eastern European gangs who I suggested carried out 'most of the robberies in this country'. It seems I did the chaps a disservice. While Eastern European gangs have been responsible for many high-end jewel robberies across the Continent, our home grown villains are holding their own over here. If I have inadvertently offended any Balkan gangster, or local blagger come to that, as well as the vigilant reader who complained, I apologise unreservedly for any confusion which may have been caused.

It has the same wanky, smart-arse style that Littlejohn always uses. But look at what he is trying to sneak into the clarification:

For too long, they had been beaten at their own game by Eastern European gangs

That is just another way of repeating the original nonsense claim and suggested neither he, nor the Mail, were very serious about retracting it.

Our complainant pointed this out, and also queried the phrase 'holding their own' which makes it sound as if it's even between the home grown and Eastern European robbers. Which it clearly isn't.

What else? To claim he 'suggested' Eastern Europeans carry out more robberies is a blatant lie; he stated that as clearly as he possibly could.

And then there's the word 'inadvertent', which makes it sound as if this was just an accidental slip, rather than a calculated slur against immigrants.

Still, the complainant regarded the 'unreserved apology' as an unexpected bonus - it is very rare for the papers to fess up quite that easily.

Those points were sent back to the PCC and therefore the Mail. The complainant also asked why it had taken the Mail so long to deal with this issue.

The Mail's response arrived much quicker this time. It began brilliantly, addressing the male PCC case worker as Ms...

Garside then offered an excuse for the delay, which sounds half-finished:

We do regret that this process has taken longer than we would have liked but the combined circumstances of the holiday period, postal strikes and a desire on the part of the columnist to address the issue by locating the item that prompted the slip.

'The slip'? Yeh, if you say so. In any case, those are feeble excuses for a six week delay, since most of this correspondence has been conducted by email.

But they offered a changed version of the apology:

A couple of months ago, after a Mayfair jewellery heist, I joked that it was heartening to see good old British armed robbers making a comeback against Eastern European rivals who I inadvertently said carried out 'most of the robberies in this country'. While Eastern European gangs have been responsible for many high-end jewel robberies across the Continent, our home grown villains are clearly holding their own over here. If I have inadvertently offended any Balkan gangster, or local blagger come to that, as well as the vigilant reader who complained, I apologise unreservedly for any confusion which may have been caused.

It was accompanied by a Telegraph article ('A raid that's a cut above the rest', 13 August) which the Mail was using to try to back up its case, but which did no such thing.

The complainant wrote back to the PCC:

given that the original comments were solely about Britain - there is no mention of crimes committed in Europe - I think that that sentence of the clarification is totally irrelevant.

And so he offered the following wording:

A couple of months ago, after a Mayfair jewellery heist, I joked that it was heartening to see good old British blaggers making a comeback against Eastern European rivals who I claimed carried out 'most of the robberies in this country'. Of course, home grown villains are responsible for the overwhelming majority of robberies in Britain. If I have offended any Balkan gangster, or local blagger come to that, as well as the vigilant reader who complained, I apologise unreservedly for any confusion which may have been caused.

And that is how it has appeared in Littlejohn's column.

And that means one thing - Littlejohn has unreservedly apologised for making it up.

It is nice to see one of his special 'facts' corrected but that it has taken nearly two months to do so does raise huge questions about the PCC. It appears to have been powerless to get the Mail to move on the issue and, of course, has no power to punish the paper other than a verbal slap on the wrist at worst, or the publication of a clarification/apology, as here.

If Ofcom, the body that regulates television and radio, has the ability to fine broadcasters for serious transgressions, why does the newspaper industry think the PCC shouldn't be able to do the same?

Mail points at and laughs at the 'blubber' on 9st woman

Big Brother winner Sophie Reade has done a photoshoot for Ann Summers today. She's blonde, got big breasts, and was on a reality television show - inevitably, she's on the Mail website again.

But as she's posing in lingerie, it gives the infamous Daily Mail Reporter chance to have a go at her weight. Not that they cared when she they were leering over her wrestling, in her bikini, in oil.

At 5ft 5, and 9 stone, Reade is, according to height/weight charts, the recommended weight for her height.

But the Mail knows best. They accuse of her having

blubber

and a

rounded tummy.

She doesn't have either. Is it even possible to describe a nine-stone twenty-year-old as having 'blubber'? Nonetheless, they sneer, she:

was still handed the chance to model Ann Summers underwear.

The use of the word 'still' in that sentence is as if the Mail can't believe someone they think is so unsightly can be an underwear model.

And yet, somehow, that doesn't stop them using four pictures of her in her pants (plus three others from her time on Big Brother).

They mention she was 7st 11 before her Big Brother stint, which puts her on the cusp of being under-weight. But that seems to be how they like their girls, because going from that weight to 9 stone means she has:

piled on more than a stone

and her weight has

ballooned.

Just so we can all see what the Mail clearly thinks is an unacceptable weight, here's Sophie's 'blubbery' tummy:
Hideous...

Clearly Sophie should be more like Kim Kardashian, who was back on the Mail website today with her two sisters.

Keeping Up With The Kardashians sure is hard work

the article begins, although the Mail website tries its best to keep up with every pointless move they make. The 'news' this time? They were at the opening of a cupcake shop.

Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke must be so proud.

Another day, another Express cancer scare/miracle cure (delete as applicable)

For three of the last five days, the Express newspapers have had front page headlines containing the word 'cancer'. On Sunday, it was their ridiculous claim that the HPV vaccine was 'as deadly as cancer', which has prompted a complaint to the PCC.

Following that health scare was the 'miracle cure' story on Monday: 'Breast cancer secrets cracked'. The article began:

Thousands of women suffering from breast cancer could benefit from new treatments to tackle recurring tumours after a major breakthrough.

Good news. But then buried in the story, the voice of reason:

Dr Helen George, Cancer Research UK’s head of science information, said: “This research is important because it offers an explanation of why some breast cancers can spread and return. But it is a very new theory, so more work is needed before we will know if it can be used to improve breast cancer treatment.”

Yes. Cancer Research's press release called it a:

provocative new theory...[that] is already stimulating international discussion.

Raising the hopes of cancer sufferers with a theory, when there are no therapies or drugs yet produced to work along the lines of that theory, is highly irresponsible. But the Express doesn't do responsible these days.

Two days later, the Express was back in 'we're all gonna die!' mode with 'Killer bug in most chickens'. Turns out, this bug is in most chickens, long has been, but cooking chicken thoroughly kills said bug.

So hold the front page with that exclusive: don't undercook your chicken.

Today, the Express was back to cancer. 'Anti-age creams cancer danger' relies on one expert from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. The scare begins:

Anti-ageing creams regularly used by millions of Britons could increase the risk of cancer, a top expert warned yesterday.

The theory is that anti-ageing creams contain Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs) which speed up exfoliation and thus leave people's skin more exposed to 'toxins and sun damage'.

The Express writes:

In America, however, the ingredient was considered dangerous enough to prompt the US Food and Drug Administration to warn consumers that AHAs “could destroy the upper layers of skin, causing severe burns, swelling and pain”.

But read this section of the FDA website on AHAs and a rather different picture emerges. Such as:

studies also indicated that this increase in sensitivity is reversible and does not last long after discontinuing use of the AHA cream. One week after the treatments were halted, researchers found no significant differences in UV sensitivity among the various skin sites.

At the end of the story, the Express writes:

A spokeswoman for the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumeries Association, said cosmetic firms were not required to warn consumers if their products contained AHAs but only if they contained these ingredients at such high levels they could be dangerous. She added: “There is a legal requirement for these products to be safe.”

But the CTPA have issued a statement saying:

CTPA has been misquoted by some of the media; we did not say that AHAs could be used in cosmetics at such high levels that they could be dangerous. This is simply not the case. It is known that at high concentrations irritation and peeling can occur, this is why such levels are not used in cosmetic products.

Yes it is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and news about the HPV vaccine mean such stories are going to seem of interest. But why not publish some reliable, informative stories on the subject rather than raising false hopes, or pushing bogus scares?

Muslims aren't taking over

One of the top stories on the Mail website at time of writing has this headline:

One in four people in world practice Islam... and 1,647,000 of them live in Britain

To which the overwhelming response must surely be - so what?

Of course, what the Mail really wants to do is provoke a reaction along the lines of - 'isn't that shocking how we're being overrun by them Muslims'.

Except, it clearly isn't true.

Look at the British figure for example. Looks quite big, what with all those numbers. But as it amounts to just 2.7% of the British population, it isn't a large section of the population at all.

Why not use 2.7% in the headline? Or say: 'Three in four people in the world aren't Muslim'?

The report - from Pew - reveals that Muslims make up only 5% of the population of Europe.

So much for the Telegraph's recent 'Muslim takeover of Europe' scaremongering.

Or that nonsense about the popularity of the name Mohammed for newborn babies.

The Mail has decided to illustrate the story with a picture of several women wearing the niqab, in order to create a certain impression. One of the comments - currently 21 positive, but unlikely to stay that way - says:

the vast majority of Muslim women in Britain don't wear that attire. This paper is a disgrace.
- B Cave, Manchester, 8/10/2009 10:41

And another - in a bizarre outburst of good sense on the Mail messageboards:

A mere 2.7 per cent of the British population, that hardly fits the view that this "once great Country" is being overrun then!
- Anne, West Midlands, 8/10/2009 10:39

Of course, don't expect everyone to believe anything based on three years of research:

The 1.67 million seem a bit low,or is that only those the authorities know about?
- Dave Pickup, Tarragona,Spain, 8/10/2009 10:31

Muslims form 2.7% of the UK population and the other 97.3% have to bend over backwards to pander to them.
- William J., Plymouth UK, 8/10/2009 10:35

And in the not too distant future they will all live in Britain.
- Anne, London, 8/10/2009 10:33

Very worrying report!
- Simon, London, 8/10/2009 10:35

And best of all, in the face of all evidence to the contrary:

We ae being colonized.
- Richard widmark, Newcastle uk, 8/10/2009 10:30

That means the Mail has done its job of presenting myth-destroying facts in a way that keeps the myths going.

PCC announces 'independent' (ahem) panel

So the Press Complaints Commission have revealed the 'independent' panel who are going to conduct a review of the newspaper regulator.

Leading this 'independent' panel is Vivien Hepworth, who was member of the PCC for eight years.

Her first 'independent' helper is Dr Elizabeth Vallance, who sits on the PCC Appointments Panel.

Then there's Eddie Young, former Group Legal Adviser of Associated Newspapers. Associated own the Daily Mail, and the Mail's editor Paul Dacre chairs the Editor's Code Committee.

Finally, Stephen Haddrill, former DTI civil servant and now Director General of the Association of British Insurers.

So two people linked to the PCC, and another who has been a newspaper lawyer.

Anyone reassured that this will produce anything of note?

Anyone?

Littlejohn makes up some figures

A small point on last Friday's Littlejohn column. During his latest diatribe about Gordon Brown selling gold, something he has mentioned at least eight times in the last year and a half, he wrote:

He flogged off our gold at car-boot sale prices a few years ago. With the price nudging $1,000 an ounce, if he'd waited he could have paid off the national debt several times over.

Firstly, the BBC's Robert Peston says:

the gold loss is spilt milk – and, as any great investor will tell you, it’s fatuous to weep over it.

Dictionary definition of fatuous:

Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way

Which clearly doesn't apply to Littlejohn. At all.

Secondly, the impression Littlejohn has consistently given is that all gold reserves were sold, rather than just over half.

Thirdly, the national debt currently stands at £800 billion.

The price of gold when Brown held the sales was $275.6 an ounce and made $3.5 billion. If the price is now close to $1,000 an ounce, a sale now of the same amount would raise around $12.6 billion.

Which is around £7.9 billion.

Which isn't quite £800 billion once. Let alone several times over.

Corrections round-up

Three errors of varying seriousness exposed today. Firstly, the Mail on Sunday has agreed to pay undisclosed but substantial damages, plus legal costs, to Madonna for publishing pictures of her wedding to Guy Ritchie. MediaGuardian explains:

Associated Newspapers admitted liability for breaching Madonna's privacy and copyright infringement.

It had destroyed all copies of the infringing photographs in its possession and agreed to pay the singer damages and her legal costs.

Over at the Daily Star, the following correction appeared:

On October 1 we stated in an article headed “Hammer horror” that soldiers from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards are having to resort to building their own furniture after being taught how to make chairs and tables at Mons Barracks in Aldershot, Hants, because of limited provisions in Afghanistan.

We now accept that the story was incorrect and that the training was worthwhile to prepare them for coping with conditions on the ground in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the PCC have given the Telegraph a slap on the wrist for what appears to be a slightly strange reason. During one of their many expenses stories, Brian Binley MP was referred to as a 'millionaire' with a 'multi-million pound fortune'. Binley denied he was, or had, any such thing. The Telegraph was reluctant to publish an apology and clarification.

It is very welcome that the PCC will adjudicate against newspapers for factual errors, and for dragging their feet, but it does seem a bizarrely inconsequential case. Take the recent ruling against Ken Livingstone when the Mail published two very misleading stories about him and the PCC ruled that they would not 'have altered the general understanding of the situation' despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Given that the slap on the wrist makes very little difference, it seems fairly unimportant either way. But it surely needs to be consistent.

Mail wants you to check out a teenager's bum

The Mail is reporting that a school in Nailsea has been sending female pupils home because they are wearing inappropriate trousers.

Several girls have been told off for wearing 'too tight' pairs of 'Miss Sexy'-branded trousers, and ordered to buy normal school issue ones.

The Mail decides to illustrate the story with a picture of one of the pupils, 14 year old Alex Dalby, with her back, and therefore bum, to camera.


The caption asks:

Too tight for school? Alex Dalby models the ''Miss Sexy' trousers

Is the Mail actually encouraging readers to look at this young teenager's bum, and see if her trousers are indeed 'too tight'?

More disturbing still is a comment from Dan Wilson in Bath:


Seems like Dan was just the audience the Mail were after...

Attack on Muslims graves ignored by newspapers

Twenty Muslim graves in Southern Cemetery in Manchester were vandalised at the end of last week. The BBC reports:

Staff found the Muslim section of the cemetery littered with broken headstones on Friday morning.

Det Con Rob Southern said: "Sadly, we are treating this as a hate crime. This sort of mindless, racist behaviour must be utterly condemned."

It appears that none of the national newspapers covered the story. The Mail did report on the desecration of a World War One cemetery in France just a month ago. But not this.

Given that the English Defence League are planning to protest in Manchester later this week, there would appear to be a big news story here. Why is it being ignored?

Two women buy toilet roll in Mail website exclusive

It has been mentioned on this blog a few times, but it's worth repeating Mail website editor Martin Clarke's statement that:

'news is far more important to us than showbiz'

Why? Because of this, currently the second highest story in the right hand column of his website:


Clearly a must-read. And it has taken two Mail journalists to write this?

Sun calls singer 'huge'; she isn't

'Mariah Carey is a huge star', sneers The Sun, in an article so pointlessly critical about a famous person's weight it could easily have appeared on the Mail website.

'Three dancers struggle to lift Mariah Carey,' it says, illustrated with this picture:
Which shows two lifting her quite easily.

The accompanying words read:

Wow, MARIAH CAREY seems to have put on some serious timber judging by these pictures.

I feel for the three dancers straining to lift the diva's junk-laden trunk...

Looking at the combined muscle the blokes had to use to hoist her off the ground, it might be better for Mariah to stick to floor routines from now on.

She's getting too heavy to Carey.

Nice. Of course, just a quick look at that pic shows Carey isn't anything like as 'heavy' or 'huge' as they make out.

Indeed, they admitted as much a couple of weeks ago, when they wrote:

the singer was on fine natural form at a screening of her new movie Precious in Toronto last night.

Clad in a black dress highlighting her actual boobs, Mariah proved she doesn't need computer geeks to make her look hot.

Still, got to make a narrative out of the photos they have bought somehow.

The Mail's running commentary on Strictly

The news that Strictly Come Dancing hoofer and Brucie-wannabe Anton du Beke described his partner Laila Rouass as a 'Paki' in a woefully misjudged 'joke' about her spray tan, leaves the Mail and its readers in a predicament.

They inevitably want to criticise the BBC and anyone who works for it.

But at the same time, they believe that everyone should be free to use words as offensive as 'Paki', and to stop their usage is political correctness gone mad.

What to say? Well, this apparently:


Incredible. For the record, Rouass has an Indian mother and Moroccan father.

But they all look the same, don't they?

In other Strictly news, the Mail claims that one of the dancing couples, Ali Bastian and Brian Fortuna, are in a relationship. Two single people start dating - hold the front pages! And follow them with long-lens cameras when they go for a walk.

Of course, the Mail does seem peculiarly obsessed with stalking Strictly contestants.

But what is interesting about the Ali and Brian story (yes, there is one thing) is the presentation. The headline is:

Ali does a Kristina: Yet another Strictly couple are getting closer in training...

The Kristina in question is Ms Rihanoff, who has apparently struck up a relationship with her dance partner, boxer Joe Calzaghe. If you search for their names on the Mail site, you get 30 results, charting exactly whether or not they are in fact a couple.

But notice how it is the women who are the subject. Why would the headline not be 'Brian does a Joe'? Or 'Ali does a Joe' if you are sticking to the celeb angle?

Not for the Mail - the women are always to blame.

Sunday Express scrapes the bottom of the health scare barrel

The Sunday Express may have produced the worst and the most irresponsible headline yet on the HPV vaccine story.

The story, by Lucy Johnston, doesn't remotely back up the ludicrous claim made in the headline. There certainly isn't a direct quotation in the story matching the words in quote marks in that headline. Or, indeed, anything like it.

It relies partly on Dr Richard Halverson, who has been touting his conspiracy theories (and trying to sell his book) all week.

Halverson was one of the 'experts' who frequently spoke to the media over the MMR scare, while running a private clinic offering single jabs to worried parents (reportedly to the tune of £480). According to Dr Anthony Cox, writing a couple of years ago, there was no evidence he had written any peer-reviewed papers on vaccines or vaccine safety.

He is the one referred to in the sub-head about 'new doubts raised over death of teenager'. Having no knowledge of the case other than media reports, he appears to know better than the coroner as to what killed Natalie Morton.

The other expert is Dr Diane Harper who was involved in the trials of the vaccine. She said a month ago that:

the vaccine is proven effective.

Before adding:

for most women it is safe, but there are real risks associated with it.

The Sunday Express quotes her saying:

in a small number of cases there are serious side effects.

Which still doesn't support that headline. Of course, there can be side effects with any medicine or medical procedure. But they are exceptionally rare.

So it appears the headline stemmed from this claim:

the risks – “small but real” – could be worse than the risk of developing cancer itself.

But it still doesn't say the same thing, is largely paraphrased, so we don't know what was actually said, and includes the rather crucial word 'could', which usually means 'could be but isn't'.

The number of people who may look at that Sunday Express front page and see this vaccine being compared with cancer in terms of how lethal it is, and take that on board, is hugely worrying.

Let's hope that most of them don't regard the Express as a credible source of medical advice. They shouldn't.

They should read instead official or more reliable sources of information here, here and here.

Max Hastings - lying about immigrants, and sounding like the BNP

Max Hastings' latest column appears to be an attempt to out-do The Sun in lavishing praise on David Cameron ahead of the next election. Max swoons:

Cameron possesses the brains, fluency and star quality to become a remarkable prime minister if he can also find iron in his soul...When friends express doubts to me about the Tory team, I respond simply: we must believe.

Testify Brother Max!

Does this mark an attempt by the Mail to become a louder cheerleader for the Conservatives than their red-top rival?

Max has listed all the problems he believes need fixing about modern Britain and - unsurprisingly - immigration pops up. But he displays an ignorance that suggests he doesn't even know what the problem is, by stating:

Immigrants, legal and otherwise, can often invoke human rights to gain access to Britain's benefits system.

By 'otherwise', he means illegal. And illegal immigrants do not get benefits. No matter how often he, or Carole Malone or Richard Littlejohn or Judge Trigger say it, it won't make it true.

Perhaps Max could tell us which benefits these illegal immigrants are getting?

He goes on:

Nothing would more swiftly check the immigration tide than calling time on newcomers' automatic claims to benefit and housing.

There's so much wrong with that sentence.

Firstly - does Max really believe that all immigrants to Britain just for benefits and housing? There are no other social or cultural reasons? Nothing to do with Britain as a fair, tolerant, multi-cultural, democratic society?

Apparently not.

Secondly - why peddle this myth that new arrivals get 'automatic claims to benefit [sic] and housing'? The benefits available to immigrants are far more complicated, and tough to get, than that.

So Max thinks people flock to Britain solely to avail themselves of free money and houses, and if these 'automatic' benefits were stopped, so would the 'tide' of people.

It's an idea that happens to be supported by the BNP. An article from May 2009 entitled 'Invaders Resort to Armed Violence to Get into Soft Touch Britain' says:

swarms of bogus “asylum seekers” know that if they can just get onto British soil, they will qualify for council housing and generous benefits...

Only once the scroungers of the world know that they will not get benefits in Britain, will they stop coming here.

Compare that with what Max says:

Nothing would more swiftly check the immigration tide than calling time on newcomers' automatic claims to benefit and housing.

'Swamp' may be more extreme than 'tide' but it's much the same idea. And it's not the first time Max has sounded like the racist far-right party.

Max also says:

It would be so irresponsible for uneasy Tories to cast a protest vote for UKIP or, worse still, the BNP.

Yes, we wouldn't want people supporting the ideas and policies of the BNP. That would indeed be worse than 'irresponsible'.