All Muslims are the same, to the Express

So today's Express front page ramps up the Islamophobia with a headline about Sharia Law.

Notice the use of the word 'Muslims' however.

The 'Muslims' in question are in fact a group called Islam4UK, who are led by favourite tabloid hate-figure Anjem Choudry.

But the phrasing of 'Now Muslims demand' makes it sound as if all Muslims are saying the same thing. And that's clearly no accident - it's exactly the impression the Express wants to give.

The story, by Martyn Brown, claims:

The fanatical group Islam4UK has ­announced plans to hold a potentially incendiary rally in London later this month...

Plans for the demonstration have been delivered to the Metropolitan Police and could see up to 5,000 extremists marching to demand the controversial system.

Going by figures from last week's Pew report, which said there were 1.6million Muslims in Britain, the 5,000 equates to 0.3% of the Muslim population.

And that is even assuming the shameless self-publicist Choudry can get 5,000 people along, which seems highly unlikely. In using the words 'could see up to 5,000' the Express admits as much.

So the Express is claiming this is what 'Muslims demand' eventhough it is what less than 0.3% of British Muslims are calling for?

As if to prove that point, buried deep in the Express story is the following:

A spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said: “99.999 per cent of Muslims despise these people. This only serves to fuel racial ­tensions.”

And the Muslim Council of Britain have issued a statement saying:

The overwhelming majority of British Muslims want nothing to do with such extremists...The Muslim Council of Britain deplores the proposed march by Islam4UK, a front organisation of extremist fringe group al-Muhajiroun, as a deliberate action to provoke hatred and division in the society.

They add:

The MCB is also appalled at the amount of coverage given to the fringe group’s call by the Daily Express which has wrongly characterised their demands as those of Muslims generally.

Quite. Why is the Express - and indeed other papers - obsessed with covering every obnoxious utterance of Choudry? Because they know they can push their anti-Muslim agenda. It's easy, and no doubt Choudry relishes it.

But more importantly, it's nothing short of disgraceful that the Express uses the headline to give the impression this is all Muslims, when it is in fact such a miniscule minority.

What is noticeable is that since the front page appeared last night, Islam4UK's website had been completely inaccessible with a 'database error'. They can't even get that right.

Littlejohn and Editorial Intelligence - not mutually exclusive shock

Your starter for ten is to fill in the blank:

Richard Littlejohn has won an award. It was ________ of the Year.

Any guesses? Here's a clue: the missing word begins with 'P'.

And no, it doesn't rhyme with 'brick'.

In fact, he's been named Poison Pen: Polemicist of the Year by the Comment Awards run by Editorial Intelligence.

Clearly, there's a limit to their 'intelligence' if they're giving awards to such appalling, ill-informed, repetitive writers as him.

It comes after his unreserved apology for falsely claiming most robberies are committed by Eastern Europeans, making up a dog story, claiming £8 billion could pay off a £800 billion debt many times over, stating there are nearly three times more illegal immigrants in the UK than most academic researchers, knowing no offence was given in a conversation he hasn't heard, knowing better than a jury what the outcome of a trial should be when he hasn't attended any of it, claiming someone has been granted asylum when they haven't, attributing an MP to the wrong party, attributing a town to the wrong county, and - of course - mistaking humans for labradors.

And all that's just since the start of September.

Brilliant.

Today's column begins with a repeat of yesterday's Mail story:

Britain is the worst place to live in Europe, according to a new survey.

Except the survey only took into account very specific factors in 10 western European countries, rather than all of Europe. It was the best bit of free advertising authors uSwitch ever had.

Still that allows Littlejohn to bemoan the state of Britain, with its bins, and speed limits, and fear of paedophiles. Surprisingly, he doesn't blame immigrants, Muslims or the gays, and doesn't mention elf'n'safety or Nazis, but does seem to think global warming is behind it somewhere.

And what is his obsession with polar bears? He seems to mention them every time he writes about global warming.

In fact, he reveals just how lazy he is when he goes through the list of recent 'problems':

Yesterday, for instance, brought a number of prime examples of the onslaught of state interference in our lives...

On the same day it was also revealed...

It also emerged yesterday that...

It was also reported yesterday that...

All within a few paragraphs. Is that really prize winning writing?

He then turns his attention to the sale of government assets announced a day or so ago. You probably won't be surprised where he goes with this...

The Dartford River Crossing is being flogged off to cut Britain's debts.

Let's hope we get a better deal than when Gordon Brown sold our gold reserves at car boot sale prices.

As this blog noted on 2 October, when Littlejohn last used that exact same phrase, it's a phrase he has used repeatedly - namely in June, March and September 2008. He has referred to the gold sale (which was over half, but not all, the reserves) on at least four other occasions too.

Of course, Littlejohn has made his career out of repeating the same old crap over and over ('you couldn't make it up' - although he does - 'mind how you go', 'com-pen-say-shun' etc) but he includes the asset sale story for no other reason that to mention the gold reserves. Again.

The others winners of the Editorial Intelligence awards were probably thinking they had achieved something half-decent. When they found Littlejohn had won one too, they must have been gutted.

(Hat-tip to Anton for news of the award)

No oppression under the Nazis, says idiot comment on today's Littlejohn column

In the comments section of today's Littlejohn column, there is the following exchange:

John, Bristol, 12/10/2009 23:08:

You keep referring to stories about the policies of isolated councils or groups of councils, and suggesting that that means the entire country is subject to state oppression. It simply isn't so. If you had lived under a regime like Zimbabwe or Communist Russia or Nazi Germany you would know what real state oppression is, and you would realise how totally inappropriate it is to suggest that that is anything close to the reality of life in Britain today.

Pete, Essex, 13/10/2009 9:12

John Bristol - "If you had lived under a regime like Zimbabwe or Communist Russia or Nazi Germany you would know what real state oppression is"" And you have lived under these regimes have you? No, I thought not. Clown.

John, Bristol, 13/10/2009 10:03

Right, Pete, Essex, so no-one has any knowledge of what it is like to live under real state oppression unless they have personally experienced it, do they? We have to ignore the testimony of the millions of witnesses who have, do we? Why do you even bother to read newspapers if that is what you think? There's only one clown here, Pete, and this message is addressed directly to him.

Pete, Essex, 13/10/2009 10:55

John, Bristol - Yes that is right. You really haven't got a clue have you or are too blind/naive to see what is happening in this country. Oh and the last time I looked the Nazi''s were voted into power by a democratic election so that is hardly oppression is it?

The Mail's obsession with Kim and Suri continues

The Mail website's ludicrous obsession with Kim Kardashian hits a new low.

She has made two appearances there in the last few days. On 9 October, she went outside wearing clothes. This was so important the Mail had to report on it. They didn't even care that two of the four pictures used were out of focus. They were using them anyway.

Two days later she was out at some awards event and so they included a pic of her - and other dressed up celebrities - in their important coverage.

But today's excuse to get Kim Kardashian into any story going really is a jaw-dropper:

Is Kym Marsh turning into Kim Kardashian?

Errr, no, probably not. The infamous Daily Mail Reporter continues:

As Kym Marsh filmed court scenes for Coronation Street yesterday, her outfit couldn't have been more demure.

But the black polo neck and knee-length skirt couldn't disguise the va va voom effect of newly single Kym's post-surgery figure.

Her hour-glass shape is as impressive as that of famously curvy U.S. reality TV star Kim Kardashian.

And that is it. There is no other mention of La Kardashian in the article, which is mainly about Kym Marsh having bigger boobs.

It's just a totally gratuitous mention of a woman they keep gratuitously mentioning because they know she boosts their website traffic.

And that can only be the reason they are following the every move of another person - Suri Cruise.

Yesterday, the three-year old girl was walking down the street with her mum, wearing a pink dress and carrying an empty coffee cup. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

Before that, she was playing hide and seek in 'a green patterned maxi dress and red shoes'. The Mail wanted everyone to know. Twice.

On 10 October, she was on the film set where Tom Cruise was shooting his latest movie. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

Two days before, she was out getting an ice cream. Three year old wants ice cream! The Mail wanted everyone to know.

The day after that, she was snapped outside, dressed in clothes. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

In that article, Mail journalist Richard Price called her a

strikingly pretty toddler

but warned:

rather more disturbingly, she is wearing lipstick. Of course, all little girls are fascinated by make-up, so perhaps this was a one-off treat for a child desperate to imitate her glamorous mother.

Yet Suri has been routinely wearing nail polish for well over a year now. Fast forward to another recent shopping trip and the lipstick has gone.

So the lipstick was there, and then it wasn't. Big news indeed.

What's really 'disturbing' is the Mail's obsession with a three-year old girl. Of course, given her parents, she's going to get attention, but six news-free stories in seven days is beyond belief.

But Suri Cruise, like Kim Kardashian, adds traffic from America. As website editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke knows all too well.

Mail thinks Belarus is nicer than Britain

Britain is the worst place in Europe to live, screams the Mail.

This may surprise people who might think that living in Belarus, the last dictatorship in Europe, might be a bit worse. President Lukashenko brutally suppresses any free speech, free media or dissent. For the 2006 Presidential election:

Lukashenko later claimed that he had rigged the election results against himself to obtain a majority more typical of western countries. Although the results showed to him gave him 93.5 percent of the vote, he directed the government to announce a result of 86 percent.

But the Mail has form on doing these stories which make Britain seem the worst place in the world to live, while at the same time claiming it's a paradise that all immigrants want to get to.

So who has made the claim? Well it's from a new study of quality of life in ten western European countries.

Ah, so not worst in Europe then, because forty countries weren't included.

Hmm. The measures used - salary, holiday days, hours of sunshine, life expectancy - are areas you might expect in such a study.

But the Mail adds:

rising food and fuel bills

And a quote from the spokesman of the firm that produced the report says:

We earn substantially more than our European neighbours, but this level of income is needed just to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table and our homes warm.

Why the fascination with fuel prices and keeping homes warm?

Surely it's nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the survey was produced by uSwitch, a price comparison website with focuses, among other things, on making sure people get cheap fuels deals.

The story has been picked up by almost every newspaper, so no doubt uSwitch's press release team can pack themselves on the back for a job well done.

The newspapers - not so much.

Raising the temperature on immigration

Here's the last sentence of a Mail on Sunday article by Christopher Caldwell:

Discussing immigration and its consequences openly is not rude. It is necessary to lower the temperature of the debate.

And here's the headline to the very same article:

Immigration made America strong - but it threatens to ruin Europe.

Yeh, that's good. Really 'lowering the temperature' there.

And here's another reasonable, calming contribution to the immigration debate:

Europe opened the door to mass immigration in the Fifties and discovered - as the United States did before it - that it is impossible to open that door just a fraction. Immigration, though intended as a solution to a short-term labour crisis, has become, without anyone particularly wanting it to be, a permanent feature of the landscape.

Read that again:

Immigration...has become, without anyone particularly wanting it to be, a permanent feature of the landscape.

Who exactly has he asked to make the statement that no-one particularly wants immigration to be a permanent feature of European life?

It must be everyone in Europe for him to be able to make such an extraordinary claim.

He is dishonest in other ways too. When talking about the Pew report about the number of Muslims in the world, he writes:

According to the report, there are now 1.6billion Muslims, a quarter of the world's population.

And they are distributed in surprising ways - there are more Muslims in Germany than in Lebanon, for example. Recent projections by the British Government show the population rising to 71 million within 20 years, due mainly to migration.

It's a clever trick - he goes from Muslims to overall immigration within the same paragraph, as if trying to make the case that if the British population does hit 71 million, it's all down to Muslims. And that's who you need to fear.

Caldwell, who works for the right-wing Weekly Standard in America, has written that Muslims are:

conquering Europe's cities, street by street

and noted:

Of course minorities can shape countries. They can conquer countries. There were probably fewer Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 than there are Islamists in Europe today.

So you can see he's exactly the sort of person who can 'lower the temperature' of an immigration debate.

He wheels out that old canard of 'you can't talk about immigration any more' in the middle of a lenghty article in the Sunday paper with the second biggest circulation in Britain. And then claims:

But if you can't talk openly, people will lack information. People who lack information fear the worst. People who fear the worst act irresponsibly.

And, for once, he's right. Just not in the way he thinks.

For someone to complain in the Mail newspapers about people 'lacking information' and thus 'fearing the worst' on immigration issues is just too bizarre for words.

Doesn't being a Health Editor mean you need to know about science?

The Sunday Express has issued an apology (of sorts) and clarification over last week's Jab 'as deadly as the cancer' story.

It was an article of dreadful, groundless scaremongering and staggering journalistic ineptness. And the author was the newspaper's Health Editor.

Here's the apology:

Last Sunday we incorrectly suggested that the cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix could be as deadly as cervical cancer and that the vaccine is ineffective. We now accept that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case and that Cervarix in fact provides protection against the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers. We are happy to set the record straight and apologise for causing undue alarm to all those women and teenage girls considering vaccination against cervical cancer.

So they're not sorry for completely misrepresenting the views of the doctor who was 'quoted' and not sorry for printing blatant lies that were seen by many millions of people - not just Sunday Express readers, but anyone who saw it in a newsagent or supermarket.

Shockingly, the apology has not been posted on the Express website. As the original story appeared on the website, there is no question the PCC should force the paper to publish the retraction there too.

And speaking of where the apology should be published, three sentences on page two is simply not adequate for a front page headline. The PCC should make it a set rule that any apology should appear on the same page, or an earlier one, and never further back in the paper. If that is the front page, then so be it.

This followed Ben Goldacre's column on Saturday, where he outlined the actual views of Dr Diane Harper, who the Sunday Express so completely misrepresented. Here's what she told Goldacre:

I fully support the HPV vaccines. I believe that in general they are safe in most women. I told the Express all of this... I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a 'controversial drug'. I did not 'hit out' – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.

And there were other errors:

Harper did not "develop Cervarix" but she did work on some important trials of Gardasil and also Cervarix. "Gardasil is not a 'sister vaccine' as the Express said, it is a different compound. I do not know of the side effects of Cervarix as it is not available in the US." She did not say that Cervarix was being overmarketed. "I did say that Merck was egregiously overmarketing Gardasil in the US – but Gardasil and Cervarix are not the same vaccines."

So how does the Sunday Express and journalist Lucy Johnston take:

I fully support the HPV vaccines...I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer.

And turn it into:

Jab 'as deadly as the cancer'

Or take the sentiment behind this:

I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer.

And decide she meant this:

Dr Harper, of the University of Missouri-Kansas, said she believed the risks – “small but real” – could be worse than the risk of developing cancer itself.

Dr Harper has also sent a complaint to the PCC. Hopefully the PCC will not meekly decide that as the paper has already published an general apology, that the case is closed.

Goldacre points out that Lucy Johnston has some form on hopeless, evidence-free science stories, and highlights this front page:

The story begins:

The spate of deaths among young people in Britain’s suicide capital could be linked to radio waves from dozens of mobile phone transmitter masts near the victims’ homes.

If it wasn't so serious, you might laugh.

Ben Goldacre wrote two excellent articles on this. In the first he found that Johnston's expert - 'Dr Roger Coghill' - isn't a doctor, and he doesn't sit on a 'government advisory committee', as the paper claimed.

And here is what Coghill believe about AIDS:

The idea that AIDS is caused by a virus is a well-protected fiction. The possibility that immune deficits, both mild and serious, can be acquired through over-exposure to non-ionising electromagnetic fields is, however, real, and proven in the laboratory.

A statement which should send any half decent science journalist running as far away from him as possible. But 'half-decent' and 'journalist' clearly don't apply to Johnston.

Except in the twisted world of Express Newspapers, where she's the Sunday Express' Health Editor.

No, really.

But back to Coghill and that's both AIDS and suicide that he is blaming on electromagnetic fields. Which is handy because, Goldacre reveals:

Readers worried by the front page story on Mr Coghill’s inaccessible research may have visited his website for more information. There they could buy his electromagnetic field protection equipment at competitive prices, and a £149 device called the Acousticom for 'finding out if your home is being exposed to microwaves from e.g. cellphone masts'.

In the second article, Goldacre tried to find out more about Coghill's research on the phone masts and suicides:

Sadly Dr Coghill still does not wish to tell me what figures he collected, what analysis he did on them, what “average” he compared them with, what the results were, and what interpretation he makes from these results. This baffles me.

He claims online that he has offered to let me inspect his data but that I declined. This baffles me too, because he also explains – in a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about me harassing him – that he will not give me his data, as he considers it “sensitive”.

And this man is the Sunday Express' only source for a front page health scare story.

Of course, the Express papers carry on with their pathetic, churned front pages from press releases on health scares and miracle cures. And neither the Sunday Express Editor or Health Editor are disciplined or sacked for their serious transgressions.

(Hat-tips to Anton Vowl, Roy Greenslade and Ben Goldacre)

TaxPayers' Alliance: the media's friend

Hat-tip to Jamie for highlighting the Guardian's coverage of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

They point out that one TPA director, Alexander Heath, lives in France, spends only two weeks a year in the UK and doesn't pay tax in Britain. Oops.

Clifford at The Other TaxPayers Alliance, who has long campaigned to have the TPA reveal who funds it, has more.

But one stat from the Guardian is worth repeating:

In the last year the Daily Mail quoted the TPA in 517 articles. The Sun obliged 307 times, once bizarrely on page 3 when a topless Keeley parroted the TPA's line against energy taxes. The Guardian mentioned the group 29 times.

That certainly fits with the (very short) 'audit' this blog did in August. But for one paper to use one source 517 times in a year is lazy beyond belief.

Clearly, the Mail have taken Clifford's guidelines on Reporting the TaxPayers' Alliance to heart.

Mail invites readers to look at 'sickening' attack on schoolgirl

The Mail's latest attempt to link Facebook to the end of civilisation as we know it comes with the story of a so-called 'happy slap' attack by a school bully on a fourteen year old girl, which was filmed and posted on the site.

But here's the headline:


'Sickening footage'? So sickening, the Mail doesn't post the actual video.

Just six all-action screenshots:

Sickening indeed.

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?