Nothing says Christmas more than putting a tea towel on a child's head

Those original thinkers at the Mail have come up with yet another pointless attack on the BBC:

Not sure about the 'the' in the headline - surely it works better without it?

But anyway, is the Mail really trying to claim the BBC don't like the word 'Nativity'? Really?

Because last Friday a film was released in cinemas nationwide called Nativity! and it was co-produced by, errr, BBC Films.

Yes. They must absolutely hate the word to produce a film with that as the title.

As for the substance of the article - if you can describe it as substance - it is mainly an excuse for journalist Laura Kemp to have a go at CBeebies for not forcing programmes about the Nativity down the throats of their audience of under-6s.

Back in June, in the Mail, Kemp wrote about how awful CBeebies was, so it's hard to know why she cares what they put out anyway.

But her argument doesn't even stand up because she explains there is a Nativity programme on after all. It even has the 'dirty' word in the title:

the sole programme completely dedicated to the birth of Christ, the Tikkabilla Nativity, will be broadcast on Christmas Day.

So a programme 'dedicated' to the birth of Christ goes out on Christmas Day. And this isn't good enough? Apparently not:

toddlers will be too busy opening parcels and spending precious time with family to watch TV.

Elsewhere in the article she attacks:

today’s blatant consumerism

and yet thinks her two year old is going to be too busy opening all his presents to watch the programme about why he has those presents. Hmm.

In any case, most kids learn about the Nativity as soon as they spend a Christmas in school. And if she's really bothered about him learning about the birth of Christ, perhaps she should teach him herself rather than sticking him in front of the TV and hoping that'll do the job for her.

She admits to having tried:

My attempts so far have stretched to My First Nativity Book at bedtime, a shepherd-like tea towel on his head which he thought was a game of ‘boo!’, a trip to church, and a glue-and-glitter cardboard star of Bethlehem.

But none of those was as engaging as a well-made and informative programme would be to a young mind.

So Tikkabilla Nativity on Christmas Day isn't good enough but sticking a tea-towel on the head of a two-year old is?

Perhaps she should stop trying to force religion down his throat. But it's more than likely, he's just too young to care.

She goes on:

Aside from Tikkabilla, the BBC has proudly informed me that one part of one episode of a programme called the Green Balloon Club will feature the Nativity.

Right. So that's now two programmes that will feature the Nativity. And a feature film, called Nativity! What about their website:

The BBC may claim its website for youngsters will contain references to the Nativity, but how many tots do you know who can log on to the internet, resist the temptation to fiddle with the keyboard and sit still for long enough to take it in?

A quick look at the CBeebies website reveals they have a Finger Puppet Nativity which gives instructions for kids and parents to make a Nativity scene for themselves.

So the BBC hate the Nativity so much they are encouraging kids to make their own stable scene.

Of course, this isn't about the Nativity per se, but another attack on the BBC for hating Christians. That's despite the six-part History of Christianity that Auntie is currently showing. Kemp rambles on about winterval lights and political correctness gone mad and Christians being under siege from other religions and all the usual Mail myths.

She says:

I’m not saying the BBC should bash its young viewers over the head with a Bible; however, there is room in the scheduling, beyond its current tokenistic effort, to explain the inherent connection between Christmas and Christianity.

No, she's saying the BBC should bash everyone over the head with a Bible.

And on her second point - surely putting out a Nativity programme on Christmas Day, is the perfect way to make the connection 'between Christmas and Christianity'?

(Hat-tip to Jim Hawkins)

Express repeats repeats story

The (ahem) 'World's Greatest Newspaper' is leading with the really crucial issues of the day again today.

More important than Obama's speech on extra troops for Afghanistan is the news that there will be some repeats on TV over Christmas.

A stunning revelation indeed.

Does the headline make sense? Not really. 'Christmas TV includes 600 hours of repeats' would be better. The way it is worded (with 'is') makes it sound as if 600 hours of repeats is all that is on.

The first version of this story to appear on the Express website - now removed - was so poor they hadn't even bothered to find a half-decent person to be outraged by this non-scandal.

Instead, they spared no expense in getting reaction from Mike Ward. Who?

Mike Ward, Daily Express TV critic

Ah.

In the updated version, there are a couple of quotes from politicians which the Express appears to have swiped from the Telegraph, whose version of the story appeared online at 7:30am yesterday. That's how groundbreaking the Express' front page is.

But they have managed to get one new quote about how the BBC is a huge disappointment. Guess where from? Yes, it's Matthew Elliott from the TaxPayers' Alliance. Where would the tabloids be without them? Elliott splutters:

'churning out hundreds of hours of tired programming is unacceptable behaviour and will leave licence fee payers feeling ripped off. Christmas, more than any other time of the year, is when people want quality entertainment, and Auntie is currently falling far short of the mark.'

Tired repeats are something the quote-machines at the TPA know all about. It's not immediately obvious why they think the BBC has to be better at Christmas than the rest of the year - surely most right-minded people would rather they were better for 50 weeks of the year, rather than two?

As for falling short on quality entertainment, has Elliott not seen Life? In any two minutes of that incredible series you will find more that is informative, interesting and intelligent than in anything his ludicrously predictable, utterly humourless, kneejerk organisation has ever said or done.

The repeats figures themselves seem rather underwhelming. For one thing, the number of hours is actually 580, as the story reveals in the third paragraph.

Also, 580 hours of repeats over the five main channels over 14 days only equates to about a third of their output. Given that the repeats figure includes films, that doesn't seem that bad.

Besides, wouldn't the Express be the first to complain if shows such as Morecombe and Wise weren't shown? Wouldn't that be yet another sign that British traditions are under threat?

And isn't a bit rich for the Express - the Express - to complain of repeats? The paper that put Madeleine McCann conspiracy theories on the front page for around 90 consecutive days. That has put Diana on the front page with tedious regularity over the last 12 years. That reheats racist columns. That in the last few weeks has regurgitated cereal, tea and mushroom stories.

Oh and, err, which paper was it that in December 2008 was complaining about the number of repeats on television over Christmas?

A round-up of Mail fail

A slightly different post, which is going to round-up several links to great posts elsewhere, and also take a very quick look over some of the other stories that haven't been mentioned here, despite best intentions.

Last Friday, the Express' disgraceful scaremongering front page and vile BNP-style rhetoric seemed on course to be the worst article of the day. But then up popped Sue Reid with the putrid Mapping out the strain on your NHS: 243 sick babies treated in one London hospital ward.... and just 18 mothers come from Britain.

It riled up the Mail readers in precisely the way that she and the Mail wanted. Health tourism, scrounging immigrants, look what they're getting instead of you - it's classic anti-immigrant fodder. It just wasn't true. Rather than some startling new report or any kind of reliable research, the story was based on the stickers on a map pinned to the wall of a hospital. Brilliant.

When first published, the article contained no statement from the hospital. When it was updated later to include this, the spokesman's words completely destroyed the story. So naturally it was stuck at the end in the hope no one would notice.

So eventhough the hospital said the stickers represented not just mothers of babies, but also of hospital staff, the Mail continued to claim it was about '243 mothers'.

Despite the hospital saying only 2 out of 550 admission this year were recorded as 'overseas admissions' the Mail continued to claim British babies were massively outnumbered.

In any case, as the Mail's graphic shows, the British Isles are completely covered by stickers, which would more than likely put people off adding yet another to that area.

And of course there's the basic decency of referring to sick babies as a 'strain' on the NHS.

Five Chinese Crackers covered the story fully, including background on Sue Reid's anti-immigration views.

5CC also asked Why 70 million anyway? as he wondered why the tabloids are so obessesed with that particular figure in the immigration debate. And in the latest 'PC gone mad: Xmas edition' saga, how the Mail reports on Scrooge police 'ban' Christmas carol singers because of stranger dangers'. Which, of course, they haven't. But you knew that just from the headline anyway.

Still with the Mail, Jonathan at No Sleep til Brooklands has done an excellent job destroying Jan Moir's latest idiotic column, called The madness of lessons in wife-beating. She deliberately misleads on what the 'lessons' actually are but thinks that teaching kids not to beat up women is, generally, a 'bad thing'.

She also, brilliantly, wants thanks for not invading Poland.

Jonathan has also looked at yet another Mail attack on the BBC over climate change, which was one of several non-stories about the Beeb that Dacre's rag couldn't resist.

Another was BBC radio presenter sparks complaints by playing When Harry Met Sally 'orgasm' clip on school-run show. DJ Steve Harris from Radio Solent played the 'I'll have what she's having' clip from said film. There was just one slight problem with the headline, which was revealed in the last paragraph (as usual):

Last night the BBC said: 'We've had not a single complaint or comment.'

Oh.

Talking of Mail obsessions, it's been rather quiet on the Kim Kardashian front recently, but she roared back into the Mail's good books when she posted a picture of her 'astonishing new figure', clad in a bikini, on Twitter.

And despite Twitter being evil and Kardashian being a nobody for most people in the UK, the Mail happily reprinted it. That was one of only four appearances in November, compared with eleven in October. Is she falling out of favour with the Mail Online 'newshounds'? Not quite - they've even given her her own section where all articles mentioning her are nicely date-ordered. Bless.

Of course, the Mail is fascinated by someone else now - Suri Cruise. The Daily Quail has done an superb job of rounding up the obsessive and genuinely creepy Mail coverage of this three year old.

Last week, this blog noted that in the last two months, Muslim graves in a Manchester cemetery had been desecrated three times. In that period, the Mail has run around 20 articles on Suri Cruise. It hasn't mentioned the graves once.

Still on the subject of Mail Online paparazzi garbage, there was a curious, but rather telling headline about last year's X Factor winner: Spotty Alexandra Burke braves her fans without any make-up.

So a 21-year old has spots. What news! And let's all point and laugh at her. But what the hell does the Mail mean by 'brave'? Being a soldier or fireman is brave. Going outside without make-up, err, isn't. Unless, like the Mail, you believe that women have to be covered in make-up and dressed flawlessly before they should be allowed out. What a hateful view the Mail has of women.

Still, at least Mail Editor Paul Dacre is the very pinnacle of fashion and grooming and would never be seen with a ridiculous hair style.

Here's a question for the Mail - why is it when two male musicians kiss it is 'crude' and 'provocative' and yet when two twentysomething actresses kiss it's (nudge, wink) 'naughty'?

Not that the Mail could ever be homophobic - the PCC has said so. On 4 November, the PCC ruled on Ephraim Hardcastle comments that Iain Dale was 'overtly gay' and implied something along the lines of a 'gay mafia' when he stated:

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

Dale called the Mail 'hateful' and 'homophobic'. Apparently, he'd only just noticed...

The PCC seemed to agree that the comments were 'snide and objectionable' but did not consider the piece:

an arbitrary attack on him on the basis of his sexuality.

As usual, that's totally puzzling, because without the references to Dale's sexuality, there would have been no article. The Commission concluded:

While people may occasionally be insulted or upset by what is said about them in newspapers, the right to freedom of expression that journalists enjoy also includes the right – within the law – to give offence.

To all the people who complained about the Jan Moir article, your might find a clue as to how the PCC will rule in that sentence.

Not that Hardcastle was in any way worried. A few days before the Dale ruling, he wrote:

Europe Minister Chris Bryant, who once posed in Y-fronts on a gay website, is wheeled out by BBC2's programme for chronic insomniacs, Newsnight, to promote Tony Blair as 'EU President'.

He ridiculed his Tory opposite numbers, Mark Francois, and William Hague, as 'Dastardly and Muttley' - the villainous characters in The Wacky Races TV cartoon.

With Bryant as the show's pink-car-driving beauty, Penelope Pitstop, presumably?

Pink. Girl. Because he's gay. Do you see?

In the same column, Hardcastle wrote this totally inane comment:

The performance of Peter Capaldi as a Number 10 spin doctor in TV's The Thick Of It, written by literary flavour-of-the-week Armando Iannucci, is nothing like the man he's meant to represent, retired Blair mouthpiece Alastair Campbell.

Yet it's praised to the rafters. How puzzling.

It's hard to figure out exactly what point he is trying to make, or what the point is of any of that drivel. He thinks it's 'puzzling' that an actor gets praised for a superb performance?

What?

The Daily Eggspress (sorry)

The dangers of salt. The wonder of cereal. The wonder of mushrooms. And now the danger of eggs.

And not just any eggs. But dirty, scrounging, come-over-here-and-work-on-the-cheap foreign eggs.

As usual with any Express story, but particularly their health ones, the headline says something the article doesn't.

The sub-head makes it absolutely clear 'cheap imports from Spain' are to blame.

And yet that's not quite the case - as journalist Louise Barnett should now as much of her article is little more than a copy-and-paste job from this Food Standards Agency press release.

Indeed, the Express even quotes the key passage:

Although there is no conclusive evidence yet, the clusters may be linked to eggs sourced from outside the UK and used in these establishments. Investigations are ongoing into a possible link to eggs sourced from an approved establishment in Spain.

So not quite what the front page claims then. Furthermore, the Health Protection Agency report adds further facts. Of the 443 cases of salmonella recorded in 2009, 144 cases are linked to 14 outbreaks. Of these:

eggs collected from catering premises in five of the outbreaks (three oriental restaurants, two cafes) were produced from the same approved establishment in Spain.

So taking a very rough estimate of ten cases per outbreak, that could mean only 50 cases of the 443 total may be linked to Spanish eggs. What the Express doesn't reveal is that 53 of the cases have been confirmed as 'indigenous'.

It would have been sensible to wait for the full results of FSA and HPA tests before splashing this all over the front of newspaper.

But the Express just can't resist a health scare story - especially one that attacks foreigners at the same time.

Express, health, etc

It's becoming increasingly difficult to keep coming up with new ways of saying the same thing about another stupid 'miracle cure' headline in the stupid Express.

It's doubtful that anyone who sees this front page headline would believe it. The second line of the article by Jo Willey (yes, her again) states:

Scientists have revealed the maitake mushroom can shrink tumours by as much as 75 per cent.

So 'shrinks' tumours, rather than 'beats' them. Not quite the same thing.

So mushrooms don't beat cancer, Tiger Woods and Susan Boyle - what a front page of truly essential stories that is...

And, as usual with the Express' health stories, it's not even new - back in March the paper was reporting on mushrooms slashing the risk of breast cancer (as was the Mail).

So the Express' advice - eat mushrooms. Just not the ones that kill you.

Back to Saturday's Express front page about how great cereal is, which came courtesy of lots of people with a vested interest in saying how great cereal is.

Was it a coincidence that that appeared only three days after the Express' Hidden salt kills 40,000 a year front page which warned that the three foods with the most 'hidden salt' are bread, processed meats and, errr, cereals.

Is that why the cereal people then dusted off five-month old research and flogged it to the Express to show cereal was good for you after all?

Following my post, reader Chris Lawrence wrote in, having done research on some of the experts mentioned in the story.

He found the 'independent' dietician Lynne Garton has been quoted in 15 Express articles this year. These included two previous ones about how great cereal is: Bowl of cereal 'good as sports drink' for energy (14 May 2009) and Lose pounds by eating cereal twice every day (17 Feb 2009).

Yes, twice every day.

As if to heighten the sense of deja vu, the Express even used the same stock photo on Sautrday's story as they did on the sports drink one:


Chris then looked at other members of the Tea Advisory Panel, which Garton sits on. As does Carrie Ruxton, who has been caught repeatedly extolling the benefits of tea. Catherine Hood is also on the Panel, and she's been quoted in three Express articles saying tea keeps you chipper when you have three cups a day, is a real tonic and is good for your heart.

Dr Ann Walker is another member of the TAP and Ben Goldacre has an excellent piece about her. She appears in 26 articles on the Mail's website. Dr Chris Steele, famous for his appearances on This Morning, turns up repeatedly in both the Express and the Mail.

Prof Jeya Henry has four mentions in the latter and none in the former, which could be because he isn't interested in being a rent-a-quote, or maybe the papers are put off by his 'funny' name...

But what is the fascination? Is it the old TaxPayers' Alliance syndrome where they just happen to be the first (and only) lot the lazy journalists always call for a reaction? Or, as Chris asks:

is there a more sinister, presumably commercial driven, reason why the Express (and seemingly Mail) are devoting column inches to these people and organisations?

Tea, cereal...what will the Express get a press release about next?

To the surprise of precisely no-one, the Express has served up its third pathetic health front page of the week.

The news (and that word is used loosely) that fad diets and too much salt aren't good for, but eating breakfast is are three revelations that it's hard to imagine why something that bills itself as the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' would consider three of the top stories of the week.

Iraq inquiry? What Iraq inquiry?

'Breakfast is the most important meal of the day' is one of the oldest old wives' tales going. Not much of a 'secret' then. So what's behind this 'story'?

Predictably enough, some 'research':

Dieticians Nedi Kaffa and Dr Katrina Campbell, of the Nutritional Sciences Division at King’s, carried out a review of the scientific literature on breakfast cereal consumption.

It doesn't take much time on Google to find out some interesting facts about Kaffa and Campbell's research.

Firstly, it came out on 10 June 2009, so it's not even new research.

But more significantly, it came out under the title 'Getting the goodness of breakfast'. It would be an astonishing coincidence if that wasn't related to the:

'Getting the Goodness of Breakfast' campaign, brought to you by the Breakfast Cereal Information service (BCIS)

The BCIS?

The Breakfast Cereal Information Service is part of the Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers (ACFM), which represents all major manufacturers of breakfast cereal products in the UK.

Ah. Now it becomes clear. Like the Express' front page about tea being good for you which happened to be based on research by someone on the Tea Advisory Panel, which is funded by the Tea Council, now we have the same thing with cereal.

And it doesn't end there. The Express also quotes Chris Seal, Professor of Food & Human Nutrition at Newcastle University in the story. He reveals:

'Those who skip breakfast generally have an overall less healthy diet'.

What the Express don't mention is that Prof. Seal happens to sit on the Breakfast Panel. The what?

The Breakfast Panel is a new, independent, panel which can answer all your questions about the benefits of breakfast. The Panel provides independent and objective information about the important role of breakfast.

The double use of the word 'independent' suggests they may be protesting their independence too much. And that's not surprising given that the panel is:

currently funded by an unrestricted educational grant from the Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers.

And - as you might guess from the name - the ACFM:

represents the interests of all major manufacturers of breakfast cereal products in the UK.

And that's not all. Towards the end of Jo Willey's article, she quotes:

Lynne Garton, an independent nutritionist.

Hands up who thinks 'independent' might not be entirely accurate...

Garton is the Director (and founder) of a company called Alimenta which bills itself as a:

health and nutrition consultancy offering specialist knowledge to companies working in the food and nutrition sectors...which offers the exceptional combination of clinical and marketing skills to help strengthen companies' nutrition activities.

In other words: PR.

And given the Express' subhead that:

Wholegrain cereals keep you slim and fit

It's no surprise to see Garton has been a:

Nutrition consultant for the Wholegrain for Health Campaign; responsible for communicating the health benefits of whole grains through consumer media.

And further:

As well as writing the health professional content of the wholegrain website (www.wholegrain.co.uk), Lynne has also conducted a number of radio interviews, been quoted in the press and written consumer leaflets on the subject of wholegrain and health.

Which makes her anything but 'independent'.

Oddly enough, she also happens to sit on the Tea Advisory Panel and has written factsheets for the Tea Council website. And the tea people had their recent front page Express story. And now she's involved with this cereal one. It's all very cosy, isn't it?

(Towards the end of writing this post I discovered Anton at Enemies of Reason had already covered similar points on Garton in his post Is blogging journalism?)

The Great Silence

Earlier this week there was a noticeable silence from the media (except the Guardian and Press Gazette) following the award of nearly £800,000 to a former News of the World journo who suffered from a 'culture of bullying' led by former editor, now Conservative head of communications, Andy Coulson.

Given Coulson was Editor during the phone-hacking scandal, it seemed there were questions to be asked of him and his new political masters. But no-one wanted to ask them.

And it's not the only story to have been ignored this week.

Yesterday, a man admitted 22 charges, including six under the Terrorism Act, after 54 homemade ball-bearing and nail bombs were found in his West Yorkshire home, along with guns, ammunition and weapons manuals. The charges included:

• four counts of making explosives
• four counts of possessing explosives
• three counts of manufacturing prohibited weapons
• four counts of possession of prohibited weapons
• one count of possession of ammunition without a certificate.

Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that if this man was Muslim, this would be all over the media. But he isn't and so, apart from three Yorkshire papers, it hasn't been mentioned at all. By contrast, this Muslim woman only had a memory stick with explosives manuals on and the Mail reported that. But they ignored this.

And the reports from Hope Not Hate and Searchlight that this bombmaker (Terence Gavan) was also a member of the BNP should only heighten the news interest. Or so you would have thought...

At the start of October, this blog noted the desecration of Muslim graves in Southern Cemetery in Manchester. Although covered by the BBC, it was ignored by everyone else in the mainstream media.

Now, the BBC are reporting the graveyard has been targeted for a third time, as 20 headstones were pushed over. The BBC says:

Det Ch Insp Steve Eckersley called it "mindless racist behaviour" that was being treated as a hate crime. On 29 September, 26 Muslim headstones were vandalised and three days later 27 were targeted.

So at what point does this become news to the newspapers? Or is it because the targets are Muslims that it never does?

There was lots of coverage (300 articles on Google News) of the case of Phillip Laing, who was photographed peeing on a war memorial. The Mail ran five stories on him, including one revealing How one war memorial is desecrated in Britain every week.

But when there have been seventy-three acts of desecration in a single cemetery in around sixty days, the Mail doesn't think that is worth reporting.

They - and the rest of the print media - couldn't be more wrong.

Things to come

After yet another stupid health scare story yesterday (too much salt is bad for you, shock), the Express was back to one of its other favourite topics today: Islam.

Or should that be anti-Islam hysteria?

There is so much wrong with the Express' article that it's hard to know where to start.

But let's try this: the headline '£113,000 aid to fanatics who want to kill us' no longer exists on the Express website. They have changed it to a much less inflammatory David Cameron: Brown soft on Muslim fanatics, which strongly suggests they have backed away from their own ridiculous front page.

Secondly, the word 'us'. Seasoned followers of the Richard Desmond papers will be well used to their use of 'them and us' to separate 'them' Muslims, immigrants, asylum seekers, foreigners and 'us' white, Christian, British people (and that's the blinkered BNP definition of British).

Thirdly, despite the use of 'fanatics' there's little doubt the paper is trying to link Muslims with murder.

Fourth, the headline and the picture (no, not Alesha Dixon, the other one) strongly suggest the 'fanatics' in the headline are linked to loudmouth trouble-maker Anjem Choudhary. And yet, the story isn't about him at all.

Although the Express says David Cameron did raise the banning of Choudhary's organisation (Islam4UK) during yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions, the main thrust of his argument, and the paper's coverage, is about another issue, and another organisation, entirely.

But Choudhary is their number one Muslim hate figure and so his face is stuck below the headline so people will make the link.

Fifth, the money went to two Muslim schools which, they allege, have links to Hizb ut-Tahir. So it isn't 'aid to fanatics' anyway but 'money to schools'.

As for the substance of what Cameron said, it seems to be part of an on-going debate between the Government and the Opposition and won't be gone into here. But the Express, more blindly loyal to the Conservatives than the recent converts at the Sun, have repeated every allegation made by Cameron despite not all the facts being known.

And now more of them are known, the Express have changed the headline online. That's not a coincidence.

On the page 4 continuation, the headline asks:

How can cash meant to fight extremism be given the extremists?

It's not in quote marks, which is a usual Express tactic. But this time it actually should be, because they have used Cameron's words:

'How can you have an anti-extremist fund that results in a Labour local authority handing out money to extremists?'

He added:

'They have secured a total of £113,000 of Government money, some of which was from the Pathfinder scheme, whose objective is meant to be preventing violent extremism.'

Which is where the front page comes from. Except, it's not true. The BBC reports that:

the local authorities said the Pathfinder fund in question was one for helping parents find nursery places

and not the fund for tackling extremism. The Conservatives appear to accept this is the case, with Cameron telling the BBC that:

the 'fundamental point' that state money was being used was still true.

Well, yes, but that's not the same as the claims made in the Express. And consider this: if this £113,000 was indeed for 'helping parents find nursery places' then what the Express calls:

fanatics who want to kill us

are actually

children from three to five.

That last quote came from the Mail which runs the story - without the hysteria - under the headline Embarrassed Tories admit error over 'Muslim extremist schools' funding. The Times also say Tories admit David Cameron Islamic schools claim 'had mistakes'.

Do you think the Express will admit similar errors or mistakes tomorrow? No, of course they won't.

Accompanying the Express' article is their daily phone poll, which asks:

Should your taxes fund extremists?

'Funding extremists' is an exceptionally twisted interpretation of this story (if it can even be considered an interpretation of this story at all). Hard to imagine many people would want to 'fund extremists' of any description, so expect another entirely unrevealing result in a few days time.

And then there's the Express' editorial, which is not online. It repeats all the allegations made in the story - that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation is a front for Hizb ut-Tahrir (the latter's press statement denies this), and that money from a fund to combat extremism has gone to 'homegrown Islamists'.

At the end, the paper concludes:

What these exchanges demonstrate is just how deeply in hock the Labour party is at every level to Muslim vested interests.

It's hard to know quite what to make of that bizarre sentence. Where is there any evidence to support that claim? What are these 'Muslim vested interests'? Does the Express really believe that the 'party' that went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq is 'in hock to Muslim interests'?

Of course, what the Express really wants to do is attack the Government and imply (again) that there is some Muslim conspiracy to takeover the country, as if 'vested Muslim interests' are pulling the strings on a puppet government.

If the consequences weren't so serious, these paranoid delusions might be amusing.

And, to hammer home the point a bit more, the Express editorial continues on with the headline:

No funding for Christians

So while the main editorial comment claims not just Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are getting Government funding there is 'no funding for Christians'. If that were literally true, then there would be very little 'funding' going on in this country.

The claim is based on a comment from Poirot actor David Suchet, who has said:

A charity I work for got turned down for Government funding recently because it was a Christian charity, even though it had been funded by the Government for several years.

So there is 'no funding for Christians' eventhough this Christian charity has 'been funded by the Government for several years'. That makes perfect sense. Do the cretins at the Express even think about the rubbish they write?

It may well be that after several years of funding, the Government has decided to back other organisations. There may be many other reasons behind the decision.

But the Express knows it's all the fault of the Muslim-run Labour Government:

It does not take a brilliant detective to work out what is going on here, just an ordinarily observant person: Britain's cultural identity is being systematically dismantled by a government of traitors.

'Loss of British identity' is a claim made in the BNP's statement on immigration. They also have a list of Britain's top left-wingers, including Brown, Miliband, Harman and Straw which they title 'Traitors All'. Why does the Express continue to use the language of this far-right, racist party?

With the general election looming, the BNP are going to get a lot of coverage because of Nick Griffin's candidacy and because of the European election results. Today's edition of the Express only helps them by pushing lies, fear and hysterical comment into the mainstream.

And if yesterday's PMQs, following on from Brown's immigration speech, are signs of what the election campaign will bring, then the Express and other tabloids will have plenty of opportunity to push those lies and that fear some more.

The Metro's view of women

The Metro is owned by Associated Newspapers, a subsidiary of the Daily Mail and General Trust.

Media ignores £792,000 unfair dismissal payout by News of the World to former reporter

It's not been a good week for the News of the World.

On Monday the Press Complaints Commission actually upheld a complaint (no, really) against the paper:

A man from Aberdeen complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Terrorised by knife thug, 7", published in the Scottish News of the World on 10 August 2008, contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and included a photograph of his son taken without consent in breach of Clause 6 (Children) of the editors' Code of Practice.

The complaint was upheld.

One thing stands out: the article was published 15 months ago. The full adjudication implies a lengthy process of evidence gathering has gone on by both sides, but that remains an incredibly long time for the article to have gone uncorrected.

The PCC ruled:

the most serious claims about the boy's behaviour - the allegations of violence and the assertion he had been expelled from a string of schools - could not be substantiated...

The Commission was also persuaded that there was sufficient information in the article and pixellated photograph to identify the complainant's son to those in the community. In the context of unsubstantiated assertions about his behaviour, the justification for publication of the photograph was insufficient.

And the penalty? Publishing that adjudication somewhere where no one will take any notice of it.

Given all the time the family have clearly spent trying to clear their son's name, is that really sufficient?

Then today, former News of the World journalist Matt Driscoll was awarded £792,736 by an employment tribunal in Stratford for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. According to MediaGuardian, Driscoll

suffered from a culture of bullying led by former editor Andy Coulson.

Coulson, of course, was in charge of the paper when it was illegally hacking into phones and is now David Cameron's head of communications. A bullying communications supremo - who'd have thought?

As Roy Greenslade points out, the source of Coulson's hatred towards Driscoll was unbelievably insignificant:

In August 2005, Matt Driscoll was asked to stand up a tip that Arsenal were planning to play in purple shirts. He failed to do so and - horror of horrors - that very story then appeared in The Sun. From thereon Driscoll was a marked man within the office.

The tribunal judgement explains:

"The original source of the hostility towards the claimant [Driscoll] was Mr Coulson, the editor; although other senior managers either took their lead from Mr Coulson and continued with his motivation after Mr Coulson's departure; or shared his views themselves. Mr Coulson did not attend the tribunal to explain why he wanted the claimant dismissed."

Following on from his resignation, the Nick Davies articles, and Coulson's Select Committee appearance where he conveniently forgot the publication of a story in his newspaper while he was editor that appears to have come from phone hack, there may be some questions for his new employers, who have spoken out about bullying recently.

Except, who is going to ask these questions? According to Google News, apart from the Guardian and the Press Gazette, no other mainstream media outlet has reported on this payout. This despite the Guardian claiming it is the highest of its kind in the media.

Is this a kind of media omerta, where other newspapers don't cover such stories so their own transgressions are not publicised either?

Mail ogles 18yo in bikini - in close up

The Mail website article Twilight New Moon actress Kristen Stewart courts controversy in a marijuana leaf bikini has several classic Mail features.

One: it's got a pic of a young actress in a bikini.

Two: it's got a drug angle.

Three: the 'controversy' is mainly in the Mail's head.

Four: there's no news in it whatsoever.

And that fourth point would be true even if this picture of Kristen Stewart in a bikini was new. But it's not. As the story acknowledges - the pic is from July 2008 and appears (from a Google search) to have been widely available on the internet since February 2009.

So why drag it out now?

Partly because the new Twilight film is currently doing good business at the box office and the Mail is desperate to boost visitor numbers by doing an article that mentions it.

And partly because the Mail is increasingly obsessed with celebrity flesh. So they begin with the pic:


There hasn't even been proper research done for this because although they claim in the caption that the man is a 'male friend', the comments say he is actually her brother.

But they could run that pic, if they really had to, and leave it at that.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to zoom in on Stewart's breasts for this second image:


Is MailOnline Editor Martin Clarke going to try and pretend this is about something other than an excuse to have a perv at a teenage girl's breasts?

Mail attacks BBC (cont.)

Another day, another feeble attack on the BBC by the Daily Mail.

This morning, this particular story was third on the Mail's website, suggesting that there are only two more important stories around.

Paul Revoir's BBC apologises after broadcast of wrong shipping forecast leaves listeners all at sea reveals:

the BBC is in hot water after it broadcast the wrong shipping forecast and ended up frightening the nautical community with force 11 winds that had already passed.

'Hot water'? So there was a Jan Moir-like flood of complaints? That's what the Mail implies:

Members of the public feared that sailors were put at risk by the reports of extreme whether when the information was wrong.

Except, shock, that's not quite accurate:

a member of the public complained to Radio 4's own complaints show Feedback about the error.

So not 'members' but 'member'. Hmm. And it quotes this single complainer:

'The entire transmission was a repeat from nearly 20 hours earlier. Was I the only sad person to spot it?'

Yes, apparently he was.

So did any ship get into trouble based on the old forecast? Did anything of note happen at all as a consequence? Errr, no. Because if the bad weather had already passed, and the seas were actually calmer than forecast then where is the danger or the chance of people being put 'at risk'?

It's total nonsense.

The only thing that does come out of all this is the way the BBC gave the Mail and other printed media a severe lesson is fessing up:

David Anderson, Radio 4's presentation editor, said: 'What went wrong is that somebody made a mistake. It was human error and a pretty bad one I am afraid to admit.

'The late night announcer at the end of the shift pulled out an email of what she thought was the right shipping forecast and read it out completely unaware it was the wrong forecast.

'All I can say is that I am most terribly sorry we got that wrong this was a big error on our part.'

Wouldn't it be refreshing for a newspaper to be so honest and forthright in admitting it had made a cock-up? In fact, has any national newspaper ever been that upfront and apologetic?

Of course, with all the bad weather last weekend - in Cumbria and other places - it seems a particularly unfortunate incident. Except, it didn't happen then. This forecast actually went out at 00:48 on Sunday 15 November - nine days ago. And yet the Mail thinks this is the third most important story of the morning?

As with yesterday's nonsense about trees, there are several comments from people attacking the Mail:

BBC makes administrative error and apologises. Is this today's anti-BBC story then? Worse than yesterday. If The Wail apologised for every lie, administrative error, grammatical error and misrepresented story it'd need a daily apology supplement...
- Tom, MKUK, 24/11/2009 10:47

is this just another pointless (and getting rather tedious and predictable) Daily Mail dig at the BBC?
- Derek, Ashford, Kent, 24/11/2009 7:59

And Tom's point about grammatical errors is a good one because in the article we get this:


which includes 'whether' instead of 'weather' and 'preceded' instead of 'proceeded'.

We wait to see what anti-BBC non-story the Mail serves up tomorrow...

TaxPayers' Alliance and Mail team up to attack BBC

The Mail's latest pathetic assault on the BBC comes in a story about trees. BBC under fire for Autumnwatch tree giveaway costing licence fee payers £150,000 reveals:

The Beeb is handing out 300,000 free trees at a thousand different garden centres, nurseries and DIY stores nationwide.

Each sapling has cost the corporation 32 pence - £96,000 in total

Yes, that's £96,000 on trees, not the £150,000 claimed in the headline. But the story adds:

This summer, it spent £57,500 on giving away 250,000 packets of vegetable seeds at 23 pence per pack as part of its 'Dig In' campaign.

So in tree-planting and 'grow your own veg' campaigns linked to the nature series Autumnwatch, the BBC has spent £153,500 on seeds and saplings.

This is an excellent idea and - refreshingly - several of the comments on the Mail story think so too. (Just to annoy the TPA and Mail: If you want to join the campaign and plant a tree on 5 December, the Autumnwatch website has all the details)

Of course, when you see the words 'under fire' you know this is the work of some publicity-hungry, rent-a-quote group who want to see their name in the paper:

The Taxpayers' Alliance has accused [the BBC] of misusing licence fees as if it were a 'charity with a bottomless pit of cash'.

Yes, predictably, it's them. Susie Squire from the TPA adds:

'It is totally misguided for the BBC to blow huge amounts of licence-payers' cash on trees and vegetable seeds when there are numerous worthy bodies working on these causes'.

'Huge amounts of licence-payers' cash'? Really?

If you take the overall BBC income for 2009 as a starting point - which is £4.6billion - then £153,000 amounts to 0.0033%.

Even if you are feeling generous and work out the percentage from the licence fee and government grants (so excluding sales) then £153,000 equals 0.004%.

It's 0.0034% of the BBC's £4,491.7 billion 2009 expenditure.

It's 1,073 licence fees.

It's a non-story.

But we now know this: the TPA thinks 0.003% is 'huge'.

Star readers 'think immigration is out of control' shock

The Star is reporting on the results of a new survey which reveals British people think immigration is out of control.

OK, so that's not surprising, but this is not something that any other newspaper has covered. How come?

A massive 99% of Daily Star readers voted yes in our poll asking if the UK’s immigration issue was now out of control.

Ahh. So by 'British people' they mean the few Star readers who could be bothered to vote. And isn't it great when the newspaper write about themselves and the news they've created?

The poll question even came attached to this story which said the British population was going to 'soar' and 'explode' because of the 'mess' of 'Labour's open-door immigration policy' which will put 'public services...under increasing strain'.

And given this is the Star, which happily gives promo space to the English Defence League and prints story after story of anti-immigrant, anti-Islam lies, is it any wonder Star readers think this way?

More Express 'miracle cure' nonsense

Today's Daily Express has its second 'miracle cure' front page of the week. There's been two others about the Royal Family (but not - shock - Diana) and three anti-Europe ones, but none (shock) on immigration or Islam.

Monday's cover looked like this:


The main story was based on a new ten-point list from the World Cancer Research Fund, explaining that eating less salt and fatty foods, drinking less alcohol and doing exercise is good for your health. Which may be all entirely expected from an organisation dedicated to fighting cancer.

But is any of that really for the front page of a newspaper?

And look what other exciting stuff is on there - the true identity of Belle de Jour and the chance to get a free tree. Great.

As for the Strictly story, that has been written by someone who's been looking at a BBC messageboard, which is what is regarded as the legitimate basis for a story at far too many newspapers these days.

In fact, although the story claims 'hundreds' of Strictly fans were calling on Bruce to stand down, it only quotes, err, two. There are more on the messageboards - although lots of pro-Brucie ones too - but it's hard to imagine a half-decent newspaper putting a teaser for such a thin story on the front page.

Back to today's cover which, rather surprisingly, hasn't led with the bad weather although still finds space for it under the shopping vouchers and free radio. The main focus is a 'miracle cure' story on blindness:


It's a 'cure' and a 'holy grail', they say. Is it? Here's the first line of the story:

Millions could be saved from incurable blindness by an injection of human stem cells.

Ah. 'Could be'. So once again the headline is making something sound definite that isn't.

Also, does journalist Jo Willey know what 'incurable' means? The headline and story are all about a cure. If true, that means it's not incurable.

Then there's the fact that Willey's article focusses in on the disease age-related macular degeneration (AMD) which, she explains, is:

Britain’s leading cause of blindness, affecting 500,000 people in this country alone. It usually strikes after the age of 50 and about 90 per cent of cases are untreatable.

So it's not a holy grail for the blind. From the story, it's a possible treatment for people with AMD.

Except, it's not even that.

The press release from Advanced Cell Technology, who are behind this research, explains that is has:

filed an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate a Phase I/II multicenter study using embryonic stem cell derived retinal cells to treat patients with Stargardt’s Macular Dystrophy (SMD).

It's immediately noticeable that they use 'treat' rather than 'cure', which the Express favours.

But more importantly, the company are talking about SMD, which affects far fewer people than AMD. So despite the fact this is the disease these potential trials will actually be about, the Express article doesn't mention SMD at all.

The LA Times explains that supposing the FDA allow the trials (which, because of the use of stem-cells, are highly controversial in America), and they go well, only then would the researchers turn to AMD.

These ludicrous, misleading, premature stories/headlines about 'miracle cures', often based on very preliminary research, is not only poor journalism, it can easily lead to falsely raising the hopes of people affected with such diseases.