The Star's misleading X Factor splash

The front page of Tuesday's Daily Star splashed with the headline 'Cops raid X Factor star's home' next to a large photo of Simon Cowell:

The picture caption describes Cowell as 'shocked'.

But contrary to the very strong impression given by that front page, the 'star' whose home was raided was not Cowell.

The 'star' in question was, in fact, Ella Henderson who was on the show last year. Yet it wasn't, it seems, even her home:

Police were last night quizzing the parents of The X Factor star Ella Henderson on suspicion of money-laundering...

Singer-songwriter Ella, 17, who shot to stardom in last year’s series of the ITV1 talent show, currently lives in London and is working on her debut album. She was not available for comment yesterday.

But Cowell was still 'shocked', wasn't he?

A spokesman for SyCo declined to comment on the Hendersons’ arrest.

Star illustrates new story with photo from 2008

The front page of today's Daily Star includes a dramatic photo of an explosion in Texas:

As Scott Bryan points out, the same photo is prominent on pages 8-9, illustrating their double page spread.

The Star is reporting on the explosion yesterday at a fertiliser plant in West, Texas.

Unfortunately, the photo the Star uses is from an explosion at an oil refinery in Big Spring, (west) Texas in 2008.

(Big hat-tip to Scott Bryan)

The Mail, the BBC and Thatcher 'bias'

As sure as night follows day, so the death of Margaret Thatcher was always going to be followed by the Daily Mail complaining about 'anti-Thatcher bias' in the BBC's coverage.

On 9 April, this was published on MailOnline:

Note the use of 'public anger' to describe a reaction they support. When the Mail and Richard Littlejohn were criticised recently over their coverage of Lucy Meadows, which led to a protest outside the Mail's offices, the paper described it not as 'public anger' but an 'orchestrated Twitterstorm'.

The Mail's journalists had searched Twitter and comments left on their own website to find people criticising the BBC for being anti-Thatcher. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but the problem is that it only tells half the story - the half the Mail wants its readers to believe. It was equally easy to find tweets and comments criticising the BBC for being too pro-Thatcher in its coverage but these were completely ignored by the Mail. The Media Blog listed a handful of examples (there were many, many more), where tweeters accused the BBC of broadcasting 'pro-Thatcher toadying', 'pro-Thatcher propaganda' and a 'pro-Thatcher diatribe'. Another said: 'Shame on you BBC...Your pro-Thatcher bias is quite disgusting.'

But readers of the Mail's article only got this:

The BBC was accused of 'disgraceful' bias yesterday over its coverage of Baroness Thatcher's death.

Angry viewers complained its news bulletins gave too great an emphasis to her critics and to controversies such as the poll tax and the miners' strike.

Twitter users accused the BBC of 'shameless' bias against the former Prime Minister. The broadcaster also faced criticism because newsreaders did not wear black ties following the announcement of her death.

The one-sidedness of the Mail's coverage was emphasised when the Guardian revealed the number of complaints the BBC had received about its coverage:

the BBC said on Wednesday it had received 268 complaints that its coverage was biased in favour of Thatcher, and 227 who said it was biased against her.

A further 271 people complained that the BBC had devoted too much airtime to the former Tory leader's death.

Arguably, the fact the BBC received similar numbers of complaints from both sides suggests its coverage might have actually got it about right.

But it is clear that more people had complained to the BBC about a 'pro-Thatcher' bias in their coverage than had complained about an 'anti-Thatcher bias'. Would Mail readers have got that impression? Not at all.

And this is not an accident. In another article today about 'anti-Thatcher bias' at the BBC (which refers to 'readers' fury' but three of the four quotes it uses come from comments on the Guido Fawkes blog) the Mail's Alasdair Glennie says:

So far, the corporation has received 766 complaints over its coverage of Lady Thatcher’s death.

But that's it - he provides no breakdown of the figures. This is deliberately partial and dishonest - to give the actual breakdown would suggest there was more 'public anger' (to use the Mail's term) about a pro-Thatcher bias in the BBC's coverage. As that does not fit the pre-determined narrative of the Mail, it's quietly ignored.

So where's the real bias here?

The Mail also got upset about BBC news presenters not wearing black ties. To illustrate their article, they used of photo of Huw Edwards wearing a bright pink tie - and also a poppy - above a caption which said: 'Huw Edwards was among those who did not wear a black tie while reporting the news for the BBC'. As James Cridland pointed out, Edwards was actually wearing a dark blue tie when reporting on Thatcher's death. As the Media Blog uncovered, the photo of him wearing the pink tie and poppy (the poppy being a bit of a clue that it wasn't a photo from this week) was actually a photo from the Mail archives...and from November 2006. The photo has since been removed, but it's worth considering why they used it in the first place.

(Cridland had a tweet of his quoted by the Mail as one of the 'critical' members of the public - Cridland said in response: 'I wasn’t outraged, just interested'.)

It's also worth noting that the Allen and Glennie article states:

other users noted that BBC presenter Mark Mardell was wearing a black tie, whereas Sky's Adam Boulton was not.

So where are the Mail articles about Sky's (in the Mail's words) lack of 'sufficient respect'?

The Mail was also up in arms that the BBC dared give airtime to speakers who were not willing to sing Thatcher's praises, and were outraged that these guests were allowed to say what they believed:

One of Thatcher's arch critics – former Labour MP Tony Benn – was one of the first invited to speak on BBC 5 Live and BBC World Service and was given free rein to criticise Lady Thatcher.

It is, of course, entirely legitimate that all views were allowed to be heard and it seems curious that the Mail seems to suggest otherwise.

Mail columnist Stephen Glover wrote that although the BBC coverage 'pleasantly surprised' him at first, as the day went on, 'the case for the prosecution was subtly gathering force'. Given he wrote a column in 2007 about the BBC 'hating' Thatcher, this conclusion may not have been a complete surprise to his readers:

Again and again we were shown the same footage of 1990 poll tax riots, and familiar pictures of police grappling with miners during the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The clear message was: This is how it was under Thatcherism. Words such as ‘divisive’, ‘polarised’ and ‘out of touch’ began to be bandied about freely by BBC journalists describing the events of the 1980s.

It seems odd to suggest that Thatcher's time in office could be fairly and honestly reported without giving significant time to the miners' strike or the poll tax riots. Glover seems to have missed that such footage also appeared on Sky News. A comment on the Media Blog from Matt said:

When the news broke, I was in the unusual position of being able to watch BBC News and Sky News simultaneously (I was in the gym). Sky ran non-stop footage of the police beating up miners and poll tax protesters, while the Beeb ran interviews with politicians and sombre-looking newscasters talking to camera.

Glover also criticises BBC journalists for 'freely bandying about' words such as 'divisive', but later in his column he writes:

I don’t deny she was a ‘divisive’ figure

And:

You may say Margaret Thatcher was unusual in being so divisive, and so is bound to be dealt with in an unusual way.

And who was it who argued:

Her divisiveness was a mark of her boldness for which we should all be grateful.

Not a BBC journalist, not Glover, but Andrew Alexander - one of Glover's fellow Mail columnists.

So, it seems, Mail journalists are allowed to say Thatcher was 'divisive' - and indeed praise her for it - but BBC ones aren't.

It is not surprising that the Mail wishes to celebrate Thatcher's life and achievements. But to report 'public anger' with the BBC over anti-Thatcher bias without reporting on the pro-Thatcher bias complaints? To accuse the BBC of bias for not getting out black ties, when many journalists from other outlets did not either? To accuse the BBC of bias for covering the miners' strike and poll tax riots, and for giving airtime to Thatcher's political opponents, when other news outlets have done the same?

Where's the real bias here?

MailOnline falls for April Fool's Day story

This article was published by the Croydon Advertiser's website on Sunday 7 April:

The Daily Mail has reported that Westfield are to erect a statue of Kate Moss in their new Croydon shopping centre - less than a week after the 'news' was the Advertiser's April Fool.

We reported on April 1 that the Australian retail giant had commissioned the statue to "cheer up the town" after reading an article in the Mail which said Croydon was the second unhappiest place to live in the UK.

The prank claimed that directors had chosen Kate Moss because her famous haircut - the Croydon facelift - summed up their plans for the Whitgift Centre, but that Hammerson, partners in the £1 billion joint venture, preferred a statue of comedian Ronnie Corbett.

It also featured an image, created using Photoshop, of shoppers surrounding a huge statue of Kate in the Whitgift Centre.

Despite publishing an article after midday which said the idea had been scrapped, the Daily Mail published a story on its website yesterday which reported the plan as fact.

Towards the bottom of the article about Moss's appearance at an Aids charity fundraiser, it reports that the supermodel, who grew up in Addiscombe, is "soon to be honoured in her home town".

The reporter states that Westfield will build the statue and repeats our made up claim that the company has commissioned sculptor Marc Quinn to produce a replica of his 18-carat gold statue which shows Kate in a yoga pose.

The MailOnline article written by JJ Anisiobi - published on 6 April - has now been edited to remove the claims.

The Sun's prison/hospital confusion

An apology published by The Sun:

In an article ‘Real life Mr Bump has had 34 ops’ (11 January) a picture caption mistakenly said that Mr Terry Butler had been ‘in prison’ for 15 months instead of ‘in hospital’.

We apologise to Mr Butler and regret any distress caused.

The Express and salt (cont.)

Thursday's Express serves up another 'miracle cure' front page story:

This is not the same 'cure for high blood pressure' that the Express announced on 18 December 2012. It's different from the one from 1 November 2011, too.

Today, 'five easy steps' to 'curing high blood pressure' are revealed by Jo Willey:

Keeping active, slashing salt intake, eating a healthy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, cutting down on alcohol and not smoking all cut the chances of developing the deadly condition.

Most of these are rather obvious things that pop up frequently in 'secrets of a longer life'-type stories on the front of the Express.

But the inclusion of 'slashing salt intake' is interesting because in July 2011, one paper said:

cutting our daily intake [of salt] does nothing to lower the risk of suffering from heart disease

And

a study...shows although blood pressure reduced when salt intake was cut, this had no long-term health benefits.

The quote from the leader of the study pointing out it wasn't quite as simple as that was left until nearer the end of the article

“We believe that we didn’t see big benefits in this study because the people in the trials we analysed only reduced their salt intake by a moderate amount, so the effect on blood pressure and heart disease was not large.”

And all this appeared under the headline:

'Now salt is safe to eat: Health fascists proved wrong after lecturing us all for years'

Which paper? The Express, of course:

The article under that silly headline was also written by Jo Willey and it included this:

Earlier this year the Daily Express revealed how “nanny state” council bosses at Stockport Council banned salt shakers in fish and chip shops as part of a healthy living drive. But critics condemned the move, insisting customers should be free to make up their own minds.

While that is indeed what the Express claimed in a front page story ('Salt banned in chip shops'), it was not true. 

Mail apologises to Sir Roger Moore for repeating false claims first published in The People

On 20 January, The People published the following apology to Sir Roger Moore:

On 16 September we published an article headed “I’ve had Moore women than James Bond” which claimed that Sir Roger Moore had recently spoken exclusively to The People and made comments to our journalist about his private life.

We now accept that Sir Roger did not give an interview to our reporter and did not make the comments that were reported in the headline.

We apologise for any distress and embarrassment our article has caused to Sir Roger Moore and we have agreed to pay him damages and legal costs.

Two months later and the Mail, which appears to have simply copied-and-pasted the claims, has also apologised:

An article on September 17 (‘I’ve had more lovers than 007’) included comments attributed to Sir Roger Moore by a Sunday newspaper about his private life.

That newspaper has now accepted its report did not accurately reflect a conversation with Sir Roger Moore and he did not make the comments it reported.

We apologise for any distress and embarrassment caused.

Express and statins (cont.)

The Express's coverage of the effects of statins (like their weather reporting) has always lurched from one sensationalist extreme to the other.

One day, statins are the key to a longer life, a wonder drug, a miracle pill that beats cancer, halts Alzheimer's and cuts the risk of an early death. Sometimes, these headlines pop up more than once:

On other days, statins are subject to health alerts - they can be a risk to health, can raise your risk of diabetes and could cause agonising muscle problems, lung disorders and kidney damage.

Sometimes, these headlines pop up more than once, too:

The latest front page - the one above right - is from today. This story claims statins 'can cause kidney damage'. Newly-published research has found:

patients taking higher strength pills were more at risk of suffering acute kidney injury.

But there is a telling quote towards the end of the story:

Prof Peter Weissberg, British Heart Foundation medical director, said: “Most people in the UK are on low doses of statins. Further research is needed to establish whether it is the statins or the underlying blood vessel disease in people taking high doses that causes kidney problems.”

Mail corrects claim on company collapse

Daily Mail, 2 March 2013:

all that remains of Cressida's patrimony is a pile of bricks alongside the A444 at Castle Gresley.

It once used to be the Bonas Brothers factory, but the business went bust in the Eighties. Its last hurrah was a line of goods branded Magic Touch, which included elastic for ladies' tights.

This was a desperate attempt to save the business, but memories are long in this corner of Derbyshire, and some blame Cressida's father, Jeffrey, for the collapse of the company with a loss of 100 jobs.

'Jeffrey let the business down,' says a former employee. 'All there is left is a pile of rubble.'

Daily Mail, 20 March 2013:

An article on March 2 repeated a claim that Mr Jeffrey Bonas had been partly responsible for the failure of part of the family business.

We are happy to clarify that Mr Bonas left the business concerned in 1972 and it was run under different ownership from 1980 for a further 25 years.

Not smoking is good for you, reveals Express

The front page of Tuesday's Express reveals '7 Easy Steps To A Longer Life':

Jo Willey's story explains what those '7 easy steps' are:

staying physically active, sticking to a healthy weight, eating a health diet, maintaining good cholesterol levels, keeping blood pressure down, controlling blood sugar levels and not smoking.

This is, the paper says, 'latest research':

Latest research has found that following the simple steps and making small changes to daily routine are the key to a long and healthy life.

These seven steps were devised by the American Heart Association in 2010 - this research confirms, not entirely unexpectedly, that doing these things are good for you.

However, it would be a surprise if any of this was news to most people. Express readers may think this all sounds a bit familiar. For example, on 3 August 2011:

The 'secret' was:

Not smoking, regular exercise, not being overweight and eating a Mediterranean-style diet could 'substantially reduce' the risk of early death.

Stunning stuff. And the sub-heads on both front pages begins: 'Experts find key...'

It does seem odd that the Express considers this front page news at all. There were two big news stories on Monday - the political deal on future regulation of the press, and the Cyprus bailout. For such a strongly anti-EU paper as the Express, it's curious that they decided not to lead on events in Cyprus, and chose this instead.

The Sun vs Gordon Brown (cont.)

This apology to Gordon Brown appeared in today's Sun:

In Trevor Kavanagh’s column of 12 November, it was stated that Gordon Brown accused The Sun of blagging his son’s medical records. In fact, Mr Brown has never made such an accusation, in Parliament or otherwise. We were wrong to use this erroneous allegation as a basis to make comments about his character and integrity and to suggest that Mr Brown was ‘not telling the full story’. We withdraw these criticisms and apologise to Mr Brown.

This is the fifth time that the paper has corrected claims about Brown in less than five months.

'We do not normally find it worthwhile challenging Daily Express euromyths but...'

An article in today's Express claims:

Journalist Alison Little writes:

Euro MPs want to brainwash children with “sinister” Soviet-style propaganda on a new website, it was claimed yesterday.

European Parliament chiefs are considering setting up a site to target young children with a “playful” presentation of their working methods and democratic principles.

There are two sentences from the European Parliament’s 2011-14 communication strategy included in the story:

“Research has shown the social and political perception of young people starts at a very early age. In a playful manner which is tailored to the needs of young internet users, a special Europarl website could bring democratic principles and the working of the methods of the European Parliament closer to children.”

The only other quotes in the article come from UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall, who says:

"Political propaganda on vulnerable kids is a form of child abuse."

The Express's stance is reinforced by an editorial comment.

The response from the European Parliament's Information Office in the UK is worth repeating in full:

Welcome to the brave new world of EU reporting at the Daily Express, where information is bad, transparency is dictatorship, civic rights are forms of oppression and checking facts makes you blind.

We do not normally find it worthwhile challenging Daily Express euromyths. It would be like trying to engage UFO Magazine in scientific debate: a waste of time and dangerous for one's mental health. Moreover, we are used and resigned to the peculiar phenomenon of its journalists switching off all critical faculties when it comes to taking politically motivated anti-EU tirades as fact, then working backwards to try to fit the circumstances to the 'crime'. 

But today's 'story' really does deserves a short comment.  The paper, prompted by a complaint by a eurosceptic politician, published a piece arguing, entirely un-ironically, that creating a website informing young citizens and future voters of their rights is now to be considered propaganda.

You heard right. The modern, Express-sanctioned meaning of propaganda - made worse by that one-size-fits-all criticism of "paid for by tax payers' money" - is not raging against a minority, say, or distorting the truth about which side is winning in a war, or inciting the populace to violence. Modern day propaganda is for a democratically elected Parliament to make people (including young people) aware of its existence and their rights within it. And to have the audacity to do so with the aid of that sinister, new-fangled technological wizardry: a website!!!!

In fairness, an Express reporter had contacted this office and asked for a quote about how 'The Parliament' would justify its deeds.

Never mind that an eloquent explanation of the purpose of the initiative (which is still only just that, a proposal being looked at) already appears in the document she herself had raised as 'proof' of this conspiracy to inform.

Never mind that it had been written by a body of senior MEPs including a British vice president of the Parliament, whom she was at liberty to interview were she able to spare the time. (She could not, or did not see fit to publish their comments).

We also happened to mention that, with one simple Google search, we had been able to come up with the UK Parliament's equivalent of this outrageous practice. Shocking, I know. Is there to be no end to the horror?

The reporter, to be perfectly fair, displayed immense fortitude at this juncture. She absorbed the ground-shifting discovery that propaganda was indeed alive and well at the heart of the Mother of Parliaments - never mind the barbarous EU - and then delivered this killer line: we should feel free to use this example in our own comment to her.

Let me write this again. It was to be somehow our job to put the 'propaganda' slur in context by mentioning the existence of similar initiatives in most national parliaments including Britain's own. Providing context and balance in a story is no longer the job of the Daily Express reporter, you see. If you want balance and context you have to knit it yourself.

You'd be searching in vain for this context in today's story, reader. You will not find it. What's worse, your ignorance of the existence of sinister educational websites set up by the Houses of Parliament leaves your children vulnerable to the horror of 'Soviet-style' British propaganda right here right now, under your very nose and, needless to say, with your taxes.

The Express did not include any response from the European Parliament in its article.

'We cannot get ahead of ourselves'

The front page of Wednesday's Express 'revealed' that a '3p blood pressure pill beats dementia':

The headline on the online version of the article is slightly different: '3p pill cuts dementia risk by half'.

This story emerges from the launch, rather than the completion, of a four-year trial of losartan. The lead researcher, Dr Pat Kehoe, told Sense About Science:

"While we certainly have an attractive drug candidate both from the point of view of possible effect and the low cost, we cannot get ahead of ourselves here or over simplify things - we still have to conduct the study to generate the proper evidence before we can make any claims as to how useful the drug will be."

Pregnancy 'news' round up

Most of the tabloid newspapers put yet more royal baby news on their front pages on 6 March:

 

The Sun's front page makes it very clear - the Duchess of Cambridge was handed a teddy bear and said:

"Thank you, I will take that for my d...for my baby"

The same quote was used elsewhere.

Two days later and the Mail published a follow-up:

She didn't? With the help of a video of the incident, the Mail reveals that she actually said:

"Is this for us? Awww, thank you so much, it's [very] very sweet of you"

In other words: not much like what was originally reported. Curiously, this didn't make the front pages.

Meanwhile, in other 'pregnancy news', the Daily Star ran the headline 'Mystery of 'pregnant' star Cheryl Cole' on its front page on Saturday.

Here's what happened: a pregnant woman went to see Cheryl Cole in concert. 'So nice to see lovely @CherylCole', she tweeted. Cheryl replied: 'Nice to see you too, you look amazing pregnant'.

The 'mystery' is that anyone thought this meant Cheryl was pregnant, or that this was worthy of a place on the front page of a paper.

Mail on Sunday apologises for smoking claim

Mail on Sunday, 27 January 2013:

E-cigarettes ‘can cause more harm than smoking’, experts say

They are billed as a healthier alternative to smoking, yet experts now warn that electronic cigarettes may be more damaging than the habit they replace.

Mail on Sunday, 3 March 2013:

A Health article on January 27 said some experts believe electronic cigarettes can be more harmful than real ones. In fact we are not aware of any experts who hold this view compared to the risks of cancer, heart disease and lung damage from real cigarettes. We apologise for any contrary suggestion.

(More info on the complaint to the PCC that led to this apology can be found here.)