Posted by sim-o
September 29th, 2010
The EU is only interfering again. This time it’s telling Cadburys’ to change it’s slogan…
EU forces Cadbury’s to axe its iconic glass-and-a-half slogan from chocolate bars
Grrr!
Oh, hang on. I think someone forgot to read the article before coming deciding on the headline because…
Experts at the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) said the EU rules should not apply in the Cadbury case.
TSI spokesman, Andy Foster, said: ‘The Cadbury slogan is well known by consumers and should not be confused or caught up with food labelling laws.’
He said the slogan was not part of the ingredients list, and so was not affected by rules regarding food labelling.
‘Therefore the Trading Standards Institute would have no objection to the continued use of the famous slogan unless it was considered misleading by consumers,’ he said.
That last quote is in the article itself.
Maybe a better headline would be “Mail blames EU for Cadbury getting it wrong”
h/t Mr Power
Categories: EU |
Tags: Cadbury, EU, misleading headline | 12 Comments
Posted by 5cc
September 27th, 2010
‘Sense of humour failure: Council slaps ban on mother-in-law jokes for being ‘offensively sexist’‘ appeared in yesterday’s Mail, claiming that Barnet Council had banned the jokes in a 12 page council publication.
What did Barnet Council say? Um:
“Barnet council does not have a policy on mother-in-law jokes.
“There is no booklet and no ban on mother-in-law jokes.
“Our advice to staff is that they should be polite and avoid giving offence to any member of the public.”
What really happened is that an external training company gave handouts to 30 odd staff that went on one training course, which only advised against doing them in front of members of the public.
Hardly Political Correctness going mad is it?
Remember: when the Mail says something ridiculous has been banned, what it really means is that someting ridiculous hasn’t been banned. At all.
Categories: Political correctness |
2 Comments
Posted by Dave Cross
September 25th, 2010
The Daily Mail never misses an opportunity to push its agenda, does it. Writing about the Labour Leadership election today, Nicola Boden says:
Once regarded as the dark horse in the competition, the energy
spokesman, 40, took the crown thanks to the party’s complicated voting
system.
“Complicated”? How can you possibly describe the single transferable alternative vote as “complicated”? Unless, of course, you’re writing for a publication that is trying to persuade its readers that any deviation from first past the post is unnatural.
Update: Corrected STV to AV. And that, of course, makes the Mail’s comments even more political. AV is the voting system that we’re due a referendum on.
[Cross-posted from davblog]
Categories: Politics |
11 Comments
Posted by Tim Ireland
September 16th, 2010
The Daily Mail have just engaged in what can fairly be described as a typically misleading attack* on someone with whom they have a difference of opinion; rather than allow their argument to stand on its own merits, they have chosen to entirely misrepresent the position of their opponent.
All praise to Stephen Fry, not only for having the courage to stand up to the Daily Mail, but for also having the wit and patience to pick their pathetic straw man to pieces:
Hated By The Daily Mail
I was one of 50 signatories to a letter that called into question the official state nature of the papal visit. I didn’t write the letter, but am proud to stand behind it and with my fellow signatories. Otherwise my “hate campaign”, as they well know, begins with the words, “I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…” it is, as I go on to say, none of my business. I go out of my way to make it clear that I fully respect the desire of the pious, the faithful and the devout to welcome their spiritual father, their supreme Pontiff.
My only objection is that this be a State Visit. It hasn’t happened before and the Vatican is in no real sense a nation state. Visit the place: it takes fifty minutes to walk round. You don’t need a passport or visa to enter. It is a curlicue of history that makes this “absolute monarchy” (to quote the Holy See’s own website) a “country”. Under no reasonable or worthwhile definition does the Vatican match up to the old-established and widely accepted Montevideo protocols on statehood. So by all means come, but please don’t ask the British taxpayer (a figure whom the Daily Mail is usually so zealous to protect) to help foot the bill.
Believe me, there is no hate there. None whatever. The Mail knows this perfectly well.
As Fry points out in his opening remarks, this is an example of the staff at the Daily Mail “intentionally, knowingly lying” to their readers, and we make no secret of the fact that the purpose of this site is to warn their readers that they are under a constant barrage of balderdash designed to make them afraid and/or hostile, sometimes for no other discernible logical purpose than to keep sales ticking over… but we do not discount the theory that some of this activity may be due to an unknown number of writers and editors being as mad as cut snakes.
[*The online version of this article was updated at 10:29am, and presently acknowledges the true position of the signatories of this letter (that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country), in passing, before going on imply/maintain that this equates to a refusal to engage in or allow open dialogue on religious matters. Further, this minor acknowledgement of reality does nothing to address the "atheist hate campaign led by Stephen Fry" text under their front page headline.]
-
UPDATE – You’ll probably want one of these as much as we do:
Click to buy! You know you want one!
Categories: Religion |
14 Comments
Posted by sim-o
September 16th, 2010
This post was originally posted as Us British Munters by Kate at her Cruella-Blog
How thoughtful of the Daily Male to let us know how we British women are doing in the International “Whose Chicks are the Hottest?” Olympics. Today’s line-by-line destruction will be of this dreadful piece by Sean Poulter entitled Why French Women beat Brits in the Beauty Stakes: They spend twice as much on products. And incidentally if you want to place a bet on the beauty stakes do call William Hill. My money is on Chile – they’ve taken the South American title twice recently and a lot of their national chicks compete with international clubs.
“The women of France may enjoy perfectly powdered and smooth faces, however they pay more than twice as much as their British counterparts to achieve this effect.”
So the women of France all enjoy perfectly smooth faces do they? Guess all those holiday postcards of wrinkly weathered old women sat on street kerbs in Provence are staged then or done with latex special effects make-up?
“Spending on creams and potions designed to hold back the ageing process runs at £1.85billion a year on the other side of the Channel, compared to £854 million here.”
Designed to hold back the ageing process or designed to rip women off? I’m calling this a victory for British women who have an extra £1bn a year to spend on enjoying themselves.
“Although Italian by birth, Carla Bruni, the wife of the French president, has come to epitomise the women of France for whom no price is too high to hold back the wrinkles.”
You said it Sean. She’s Italian. Italian. And she’s an Italian supermodel. If anyone thinks she represents the women of France they should try speaking to a French woman. A real one. And if no price really was too high for the women of France the country would be bankrupt in about a week and every woman’s bathroom cabinet full of royal jelly and placenta.
“Indeed, some of the 42-year-old’s treatments, thought to include laser skin peels and botox, have produced some startling and bizarre results.”
Startling and bizarre – no price is too high for me to achieve THAT look.
“By contrast, Samantha Cameron, who is three years younger, apparently enjoys a more natural – English Rose – beauty regime.”
Samantha Cameron is also NOT a super-model. She’s a part-time accessory designer. And comparing one English part-time bag designer with one Italian model and then drawing conclusions about all British and all French women is just weird. There is real news out there you know Sean? Try visiting Congo, I think some women have been raped. Let us know if that helps to “hold back the wrinkles”, won’t you?
“New reseach looking at the body hang-ups of the women of Europe identifies some surprising differences.”
Surprising? So like German women wish they had two heads while the Latvians long for lustrous feathered wings? Something tells me I am going to be less surprised than I was when there wasn’t a fiver in that novelty birthday card last year.
“Certaintly, the women of France are content with their enviably flat stomachs.”
Ah, enlightenment… That’s probably also why Shakira looks so smug. And like Carla Bruni – she’s not French!
“Just 27per cent list their stomach as a problem area, which is a fraction of the 44per cent of British women who are worried about their flabby midriff.”
The question of course is what percentage are actually dangerously overweight and what percentage have merely been convinced they are by the beauty industry? But that would be journalism wouldn’t it Sean? And your speciality is copying out corporate press releases. Sidenote though: I don’t believe doubling your creams and lotions budget is going to shrink your midriff – it might be a better idea to halve your dessert budget.
“However, British women are far more content with their breasts and thighs than their counterparts across the Channel.”
I can’t wait to hear what percentage prefer not to rate their bodies like cuts of meat.
“Just 31per cent of women here are worried about having chunky thighs, compared to 43per cent of the French. Similarly, 30per cent of women in this country are concerned about their breasts, versus 38per cent of the French.”
The real issue is right across Europe women have been convinced to hate some part of their anatomy that is perfectly healthy.
“Looking at other nations, Italian women have a problem with their bottoms with some 47per cent listing this as a concern, far more than any other nation.”
If you have “a problem with your bottom” you should see a doctor. [Se hai un problema con il fondo si dovrebbe vedere un medico.]
“Rather alarmingly, some 57per cent of Spanish women have a worry about their entire face. Again a higher percentage than other nations.”
Well spotted Sean, that is certainly alarming. Can’t wait for your in depth research to discover what is behind these numbers, why we allow the beauty industry to bully women into feeling this way…
“Among German women, 46per cent are worried about their bigger bellies.”
…or you could just carry on cut and pasting that press release. Stick to what you’re good at eh?
“The research was conducted by retail analysts at Mintel for a report investigating the sales patterns of beauty creams and potions.”
It’s like I’m psychic isn’t it?
“It found that for British women, concerns about ageing are focused on the eyes and the dark circles, bags and wrinkles that give their age away.”
I find for me what gives my age away is that I just tell people because I don’t think getting older is shameful.
“Some 48per cent said the eye area is a worry, while 35per cent were concerned about a sagging jaw line.”
I still want to know what percentage told the interviewer to go f*ck themselves.
“Sixty-two per cent were worried about fine lines and wrinkles and 49per cent wanted to do away with the dark circles they have.”
What percentage were worried about all this rubbish BEFORE the market researcher started asking stupid intrusive questions?
“Nica Lewis, head consultant Mintel Beauty Innovation, said there is enormous money to be made by beauty companies that find a way to hold back the ageing process.”
Indeed. So much so that it might seem like even some of the companies who haven’t managed it will claim they have. If only there was a journalist around to investigate, but there’s only you eh, Sean?
“‘Ageing skin is no longer only a worry for older consumers. Younger women are now paying more attention to preventing wrinkles while they can rather than trying to cure them at a later stage,’ she said.”
So now they’re selling wrinkle cream to women who don’t even have wrinkles. Shouldn’t you be exposing the lies, pseudo-science and creepy advertising tricks that make women believe they should spend a lot of money on products that don’t even work? Sorry – almost forgot you’re working for the Mail…
“‘Educating these younger women about the benefits of a good facial skincare regime is an important way to ensure product take-up.”
“Ensuring product take-up”? Honestly – I know you didn’t write this, some PR puppy did – but really Sean – don’t put your name on articles this humiliating. It’s … well … humiliating.
“‘Brands could use mobile phone apps to remind young girls when to cleanse and moisturise on a morning and at night…”
Mmm how helpful of my phone to tell me when morning and night come round. What if I run out of battery though – if only some giant glowing orb would appear and disappear from the sky…
“…and notify them of new products or competitions and offers they could take advantage of.”
Wouldn’t that be ace? Having companies send junk mail direct to your actual phone so you don’t have to go downstairs and find it on the hall floor.
“A clear link between teen lines and ranges aimed at women in their early to mid-20s could also help brands retain customers…”
Sean, really, I understand that besuited twerps doing “brand management” graduate internships say this sort of thing but you are a journalist. Or at least you probably think you are.
“…as they progress through their age-related skincare needs.”
Oh gosh yes so here’s a quick run down of your age-related skincare NEEDS…
Age 0-5: soap and water
Age 5-10: soap and water
Age 10-15: soap and water
Age 15-20: soap and water
Age 20-25: soap and water
Age 25-30: soap and water
Age 30-35: soap and water
Age 35-40: soap and water
Age 40-45: soap and water
Age 45-50: soap and water
Age 50-55: soap and water
Age 55-60: soap and water
Age 60-65: soap and water
Age 65-70: soap and water
Age 70-75: soap and water
Age 75+: soap and water
Oh sorry Sean, I thought you said NEEDS. No-one needs expensive anti-aging products and treatments. In any case the treatments you suggest Carla Bruni has had are medical procedures like Botox. She’s not having those because she got a text about brand loyalty.
And worse still there is a real story hidden in here about body image – the rise in Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Eating Disorders and the irresponsible attitude of the beauty industry pushing expensive products that don’t actually work on women across Europe. Instead we’ve got a male journalist regurgitating a press release that reads like an advert for these products.
Please stop.
Categories: Guest Blog, Healthcare |
Tags: advertorial, cosmetics, press release | 3 Comments
Posted by sim-o
September 9th, 2010
If you’ve got a Facebook account you’ve got a serious choice to make.
Where do you book yourself into first? The oncologist, the school or the pyschotherapist?
Not only does Facebook give you cancer, it doesn’t just make you stupid (as does anything else that distracts from studying), it also means that you’re narcissistic with low self esteem. Apparently.
Using Facebook is the online equivalent of staring at yourself in the mirror, according to a study.
Is it? Is it, really?
This conclusion is arrived at from a study, of which at least they give some details of.
So what did the study consist of?
They [the subjects] all took psychology tests to measure their levels of narcissism, which the study defined as ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and an exaggerated sense of self-importance’.
Those who scored higher on the narcissism test checked their Facebook pages more often each day than those who did not.
There was also a difference between men and women – men generally promoted themselves by written posts on their Facebook page while women tended to carefully select the pictures in their profile.
As we all could’ve guessed without a study, the narcissistic people checked Facebook more often, which isn’t quite the same as the headline…
Facebook users ‘are insecure, narcissistic and have low self-esteem’
Which suggests that all facebook users have those qualities. Not misleading at all is it?
Oh, the size of the study? 100 18-25 year old students. 100 out of 500 million of the most narcissistic, insecure users of Facebook.
Categories: Media |
Tags: facebook, misleading headline | 9 Comments
Posted by adambienkov
September 7th, 2010
The Daily Mail has a killer story in the paper today:
Sunshine can give you wrinkles ‘even through a window’
By SEAN POULTER
It’s a well-known fact that shunning the sunscreen and basking in direct sun leads to wrinkles.
But those who thought their skin was shielded while driving, or sitting in a conservatory, could be in for a nasty surprise
Yes that’s right readers. We all knew that sunshine gave you wrinkles but what we didn’t know is that it can pass EVEN THROUGH A WINDOW!
Look, the Mail even has a picture to demonstrate just what sunlight coming through a window looks like:
And I know it must be a nasty surprise, particularly if you have been confusing those glassy type wall things with those other more bricky type wall ones.
But this isn’t just a scaremongering puff piece. No there’s real sciencey stuff behind it:
Professor John Hawk, an Emeritus Professor of dermatological photobiology and UVA expert, said: ‘We believe up to 90 per cent of the visible signs of ageing are due to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation and more than 95 per cent of these are known to be UVA rays.
‘What’s needed is a step-change in awareness of the damaging effects all year round, not just during summer holiday season.”
And of course nobody needs that step change more than the company who is paying for it:
The research is published by Boots, which is introducing UVA sun protection into a line of No 7 moisturisers.
Which is terribly nice of the Daily Mail to mention of course, because otherwise I’d just assume they were wasting our time.
Categories: Healthcare |
Tags: advertorial | 12 Comments
Posted by carlp
September 6th, 2010
On July 22nd I wrote a small blog entry on my website about a dodgy article in the Daily Mail about children with special educational needs.
In my entry I asked: “[a]t what point do we suppose the Daily Mail not only dislikes the inclusion of young people with special educational needs in schools, but doesn’t think special educational needs exist outside of the 2% once designated before the Warnock report of 1978.”
Of course the article in the Mail doesn’t explicitly say there is no such things as Special Needs because in doing this, not only would they be wrong (this shouldn’t phase them too much), they’d open up the grounds for a whole campaign and would alienate a large amount of people (even if those people are Mail readers).
The Mail article stated that “it has also been claimed” that doctors, teachers and parents are too keen to pin medical labels – such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – on “what might previously have been branded poor discipline”.
It then quoted Dr Gwynedd Lloyd, an education researcher at the University of Edinburgh, who said:
You can’t do a blood test to check whether you’ve got ADHD – it’s diagnosed through a behavioural checklist. Getting out of your seat and running about is an example – half the kids in a school could qualify under that criterion.
My charge is obviously against the unsourced article where the Mail, instead of making a claim themselves, have claimed that “doctors, teachers and parents” attest to children being overbranded.
Then last week a comment appeared below my entry by Dr Lloyd herself telling me that:
The daily mail used a quote from me, without my permission, from another article that took a different approach. My argument is not that ADHD doesn’t exist, it is that we are clustering together lots of difficult and challenging behaviour under one rather simple diagnosis and then using stimulant medication. Of course such children need additional support in school and should get it. The daily mail used my quote out of context to support their argument against inclusion. I disagree completely with their conclusions!
Of course! The Mail don’t make claims themselves, they use claims by other people in order to hide what they really think, but even better than that, they use quotes from people who don’t even agree with the charge they are hiding behind.
I contacted Dr Lloyd through her work email to verify whether it was really her who had left the comment. After confirming this she told me that she was:
really fed up with the Daily Mail using this bit of a quote. The original was in the Guardian and has since appeared without context (and to support opinions I dislike) twice in the Mail and one in the Telegraph. – so not just the tabloids!
So let it be known, the Mail (and the Telegraph) will use quotes out of turn, without permission, to write ill-thought commentary on subjects they find contentious. Why people continue using this rag for information is well beyond me.
Categories: Politics |
Tags: deceit, education, special needs | 2 Comments
Posted by Tim Ireland
September 6th, 2010
Greetings! The post you are reading at this moment is appearing simultaneously on four websites:
Bloggerheads (post permalink) – my personal site
The Sun: Tabloid Lies (post permalink) – a media watch site targeting The Sun
Daily Mail Watch (post permalink) – a media watch site targeting the Daily Mail
Express Watch (post permalink) – a brand new media watch site targeting Express newspapers
I’m not the gaffer for all of these sites, but I have had a word with the relevant writers and webmasters about what I’m about to share with you, the reader, so you know what to expect from these media watch sites targeting The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express:
All three sites will now operate as open clubhouses for the following writers and bloggers, all of whom have a solid track record* and ongoing interest in blogging and media watchery:
– 5cc :: @
– bigdaddymerk :: @
– Adam Bienkov :: @
– Chris Coltrane :: @
– D-Notice :: @
– Daily Quail :: @
– Dave Cross :: @
– Kate Griffin :: @
– Daniel Hoffmann-Gill :: @
– Tim Ireland :: @
– MacGuffin :: @
– Hannah Mudge :: @
– Carl P :: @
– Nadia Saint :: @
– septicisle ::
– Sim-O :: @
– Uponnothing :: @
– Anton Vowl :: @
(*I could be more effusive if I weren’t in the list myself. Damn my modesty.)
From today, these writers will be free to submit original content and/or reference or mirror articles from their own sites about The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express newspapers.
Don’t expect everyone to come rushing in at once; the whole idea is that we can all drop in as and when we please; i.e. whenever we have time to report/share clear examples/evidence of these newspapers deceiving their readers.
(I’ve started by popping a couple of backdated mirrors about the Dunblane incident and a recent dash of homophobia and hypocrisy in Express Watch, BTW, and you will probably see more like these appearing over the coming days/weeks as we go about the process of populating the newer site with a little historical data on a writer-by-writer basis.)
There are bound to be varying degrees of tolerance between writers and over time, but we will continue to avoid ‘hating’ on tabloid readers generally (this being existing policy on the two older media watch sites), as we recognise that even the worst elements are victims to a degree if they base their fears/prejudices on misleading information fed to them by these newspapers – and we are ultimately out to bring some of them on board with the whole ‘honesty in media’ policy (at least to the extent that they cease reading, funding and otherwise enabling these media outlets that play so wilfully on the fears of others).
To put it bluntly, we as a group (a) seek to remind the readers of these tabloids that they are being lied to on a regular basis, (b) will attempt to call their owners and editors to account where possible/appropriate, and (c) aim to chip away at their circulation in the process by the devilish means of repeatedly exposing their fraud… when we each have a few minutes.
This ‘clubhouse’ approach should be enough, one hopes, to keep all three media watch interests ticking over a steady rate, and keep the documentation of the worst of these tabloids’ deceits relatively central and readily accessible.
With that newly-centralised relevance in mind, from an SEO (search engine optimisation) perspective, I also have designs on all three sites eventually earning very high placement for the name of each newspaper title; Daily Mail Watch is at present 7th for ‘daily mail’ in Google UK and prone to go higher, and The Sun: Tabloid Lies has just recently entered the top ten for ‘the sun’ (i.e. it is now 9th in Google UK).
Keep an eye out for our clubhouse members as they begin to appear over the coming week. Oh, and do add the following to your sidebars, readers and bookmarks, because these sites are about to become your first stop for any news involving any of the following tabloid newspapers:
The Sun: Tabloid Lies
Daily Mail Watch
Express Watch
Cheers all.
Categories: Housekeeping |
3 Comments
