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)

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.

The eagle has crash landed

The day after the 'eagle snatches kid' video was revealed as a hoax - the Telegraph published confirmation of this at 8:12pm on Wednesday - several of the tabloids ran the story in their print editions.

The Express headline read 'Terror in the skies as eagle snatches tot':

Although the article admitted a 'fierce online debate was raging' about whether it was a hoax, the paper calls it a 'terrifying incident' in the third sentence.

The Sun's headline was 'Child's prey':

Like the Express, it reports on the fact that 'some' had 'questioned whether the incident...was real or a CGI fake.' But at the top of the story, the Sun says:

Dad's horror as golden eagle swoops on his toddler son in park and tries to carry him away

The Star went with 'The eagle has landed a tot!':

It does include the truth that 'the clip turned out to be a...computer-generated fake' but this appears to be a late addition, as the rest of the story is written as if it is genuine - including, on the right of the page:

'What do you think? Check out the video at www.dailystar.co.uk'

(Pictures from Jonathan Haynes, posted on Twitter)

Star's latest example of an 'embellished and inaccurate' headline

The front page of Saturday's Daily Star boasts an 'exclusive':

'Ash and Dec's Secret Jungle Date'. It's yet another story from I'm A Celebrity which has been on the front page of the Star almost every day since the series started.

Just below the 'Exclusive' banner we're told:

Sex-starved TV babe Ashley Roberts wants a date with I'm A Celebrity host Declan Donnelly after leaving the jungle, we can reveal.  

So the 'secret date' hasn't actually happened.

This comes two days after the Leveson Report said, in a section on 'deliberately misleading headlines' in which the Star gets several mentions (p.682):

What seems clear is that, faced with a fiercely competitive market, some titles have found themselves on the wrong side of the line between an attention-grabbing but accurate headline and an embellished and inaccurate headline.

Leveson on the 'tendency to sexualise and demean women'

One phrase that unexpectedly appears in the Leveson Report is (p.664):

massive pervy eyeful

It is a quote from a 'story' published by the Daily Star on 15 November 2011:

The 'story' says:

Sam's a bit of a ski bum

We assume you're not even reading this because you're still getting a massive pervy eyeful of that pert ass going up a fake ski slope.

But if you have managed to tear your bum-filled eyeballs away, you will realise the owner of those tight buns is TOWIE babe Sam Faiers, 20.

She showed off her impressive, er, snow plough on a family day out at Brentwood Ski Centre in her Essex hood.

This was submitted to Leveson by the organisation OBJECT as one example (among many) of the objectification of women in the media.

Referring to the Star, Sun and Sport, Lord Justice Leveson pointed out (p.664):

all three titles contained what can only be described as objectifying material. All three included numerous articles with no other purpose except to show an image of a scantily clad or topless woman...

All three titles included articles with no purpose other than to attach a photograph of, and describe in derogatory language, a woman’s breasts or bottom...

All three contained large scale advertisements for pornography and/or escort services. And all three included articles which appeared to eroticise violence against women.

He concluded (p.664):

The evidence as a whole suggested that there is force in the trenchant views expressed by the groups and organisations who testified to the Inquiry that the Page 3 tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally, and that there was a tendency to sexualise and demean women. That failure is particularly clear in the pages of the Sport, which is, in my view, hardly distinguishable from the admittedly ‘softer’ end of top-shelf pornography. But it exists to a lesser degree in the Daily Star and The Sun. For The Sun, at least, it is a failure of consistency, rather than a general failure to show respect for women. The Sun has campaigned admirably against domestic violence, rape, and size zero models.[373] But it is clear that those campaigns have, perhaps uncomfortably, sat alongside demeaning and sexualising representations of women.

Leveson on the 'discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced' reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.  

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as 'Muslim Only Public Loos', 'Terror Target Sugar', 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' and 'Muslim Plot To Kill Pope'. 

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including 'Swan Bake', 'Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys' and 'Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay...because he goes to the GYM' all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672): 

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

 

A murder in Turkey

The following borrows heavily from a blogost by Jane Fae.

Jane looked at the coverage of Chris Collier and his conviction, in Turkey, for the murder of his wife.

The headlines in the UK media included:

Two things stand out from these headlines from the Sun, Mail and Metro. First, it is stated as fact that Julia Collier 'was born a man'. Second, the use of 'after he discovered' implies that there is a link between the murder and this 'discovery'.

But are either of these things true? After all, the Sentinel in Staffordshire (where Collier lived before emigrating) and an English-language newspaper in Turkey reported the conviction without reference to Julia being 'born a man'.

Jane Fae suggests this angle may have come to prominence in 2010 in an article in the Daily Star by Jerry Lawton. It said:

Police are examining postings in an internet forum used by expat Brits from someone claiming to be Collier.

One said: “I paid for my wife and then moved to Kusadasi in my rented apartment.”

The blogger added that Julia “used to be a bloke”.

Police are trying to establish if Collier himself posted the message or was being taunted by someone posing as him.

The forum in question is the Kusadasi Fans Forum. There, in 2006, someone using the screen-name 'chriscollier' wrote:

I paid for my wife, and then moved to kusadasi in my rented appartment, my wife julia who may i add used to be a bloke sings in the koramar and she brings me hours of happenis. What you all reckon then. I want your views.

In their replies, the forum moderators pointed out that this person was posting from an IP in Leeds. Not from Kusadasi, Turkey. The user was banned after posting only 11 comments.

It is very difficult - maybe impossible - to know who posted this comment and yet this appears to be the origin of, and only piece of evidence for, the 'she used to be a man' claim.

If we imagine that Collier did actually write that comment in 2006 and the murder took place in 2010, the way the headlines have linked both events appears problematic.

But the possibility that he 'was being taunted by someone posing as him' in this comment certainly raises questions about the recent coverage. 


Moreover, the claim he 'bought' his wife and 'then moved to Kusadasi' is at odds with the statement from a friend quoted in most of the articles, who says:

"Julia was just the nicest girl you could ever meet. She was a singer, and she used to perform at the Korumar Hotel in Kusadasi. That is where they met."

It is not clear if the trans claim is true and, even if it is, whether it was the motive. It appears that all the articles making these claims - which the local paper in Staffs, and a paper in Turkey did not repeat - are relying on a six-year-old comment on a forum that could have been written by anyone.

(Hat-tip to Jane for her detective work)

Mail apologises to Nicolas Cage and BBC over 'tax evasion' claims

Actor Nicolas Cage has won an apology and 'undisclosed damages' from MailOnline after an article published on 1 September called him a 'tax evader'.

His solicitor Paul Tweed said:

"My client has secured a complete vindication of his reputation following the publication of a categoric retraction by the MailOnline for what they immediately acknowledged was a completely unfounded and defamatory allegation of tax evasion.

"While my client acknowledges the MailOnline's prompt apology, which was one of the quickest that I have negotiated in recent times, together with the payment of undisclosed damages and his legal costs, he nonetheless remains very concerned that such a false and outrageous headline should have been published in the first place."

MailOnline has now published the following:

On 1 September we wrongly referred to Nicolas Cage as a “tax evader”. While Mr Cage has owed a substantial sum to the IRS for unpaid taxes, he has never been accused or found guilty of any tax crime. We apologise to Mr Cage for any distress and embarrassment caused by our error.

This is not the only time the Mail has got in trouble over a 'tax evasion' claim in recent months. On 23 July, the paper splashed 'BBC tells stars to dodge tax' on its front page:

Chief Financial Office Zarin Patel responded to the 'misleading reports', explaining:

Contrary to these reports, we have not told thousands of workers to go 'off the books' in order to cut our tax bill, neither are we 'avoiding national insurance' contributions by paying individuals via service companies...

Let me be clear, the BBC does not expect anyone to use the service company arrangement to 'dodge tax' by paying the lower corporation rate when they are not eligible to do so...

All the arrangements that the BBC uses have been designed in conjunction with HMRC. Far from being an attempt to 'dodge tax', the arrangements are designed to ensure the correct amount is payable...

On 7 August, the Mail published a correction:

A front page story and editorial comment on July 23 wrongly suggested that the BBC was instructing its staff to set up personal service companies in order to avoid or evade paying the correct amount of tax.

While it is true that the BBC have asked hundreds of workers to set up personal service companies, we accept that neither the BBC, nor its Chief Financial Officer, Zarin Patel, have told members of its payroll (or freelancers) to avoid or evade tax and apologise to them for any such suggestion.

Needless to say, this did not appear with the prominence of the original and was not published on the front page. 

Patel is currently taking legal action against the Daily Star, after it published its own version of the Mail's story (headline: 'Dodge tax or face the sack! BBC tells its stars'.)

Another photo error...

Twenty minutes after this blog tweeted this...

...the Daily Star changed the picture, and added an apostrophe to the headline.

Another 'eye-catching' Star headline on Cowell

The front page of today's Daily Star has, it claims, an 'exclusive':

It is not unusual for Richard Desmond's Star to run stories about programmes broadcast on Richard Desmond's Channel 5.

And with yet another outing of Celebrity Big Brother starting in a couple of weeks, the Star needs to start promoting it now. So we have 'Cowell's secret Big Bro sex romps' on the front page.

Has Simon Cowell - who isn't dead - been having 'secret Big Bro romps'...whatever that means?

Here's the story:

Simon Cowell’s stunning ex-lover Jasmine Lennard is set to give TV censors a nightmare on Celebrity Big Brother next month.

The model, 27, signed a legal agreement never to spill the beans about her sizzling six-month fling with The X Factor boss.

However, the sexy lass is struggling to keep her lips sealed.

Oh. So someone who apparently had a 'fling' with Simon Cowell six years ago is going on Celebrity Big Brother (and won't be able to talk about it).

As Star editor Dawn Neesom might say, this is a headline that is 'eye-catching' rather than accurate.

ASA upholds complaints about Express/Star front page 'offers'

On 5 April, this blog highlighted some 'offers' that appeared on the front pages of the Express and the Star. On one day, the papers highlighted that you could get £5 off at Tesco when you spent £40, a few days later, the same offer for Asda.

Yet when people turned to page x for more details, all they found was a paid for advert promoting an offer that was generally available. In other words, you did not need to buy the Star or the Express in order to get the offer.

Twelve people complained to the Advertising Standards Agency. In response, Express newspapers said:

they did not believe anything in the front-page flashes implied there would be a £5-off coupon inside the newspapers. They said the text did not state or imply that there was a coupon but only that it was possible to get £5 off shopping at Tesco when spending £40. They said the flashes made clear that readers needed to go to the page indicated to find out more and the relevant page contained full details, and the terms and conditions, of the promotion. They said that if a coupon had been part of the promotion they would have stated as much, as they had in other coupon promotions. Express Newspapers believed that making clear a coupon was not required would only have encouraged more consumers to purchase the newspapers, because it was an additional benefit compared to coupon offers. They considered the ads did not misleadingly imply there was a coupon inside the newspapers.

As this blog pointed out in April, several people took to various money saving and voucher forums to complain, as they had believed they needed to buy the paper (and some had done so).

The ASA agreed with them, upholding the complaints on the grounds of misleading advertising:

The ASA noted the front-page flashes did not explicitly state there was a coupon inside the newspapers. We considered, however, the overall impression of the ads, in particular the text "£5 OFF SHOPPING AT TESCO WHEN YOU SPEND £40 DETAILS: PAGE XX", was such that consumers would believe there was a discount offer that was available only to readers, for example in the form of a money-off coupon, on the relevant page. 

We noted that the relevant pages instead included paid-for advertising by Tesco which described a promotion whereby customers would receive a coupon for £5 off the next week's £40 shop if they spent £40 during the current week, rather than receiving a £5 discount when spending only £40 as the front-page flashes stated. 

We understood that promotion was generally available to Tesco customers, rather than only to readers of the Daily Star and Daily Express. We considered the ads misleadingly implied the newspapers included a £5 discount offer that could be redeemed without further significant conditions when spending £40, for example in the form of a coupon, and therefore concluded that they breached the Code.

The ASA can only tell the newspaper not to do it again - not much of a punishment for a long-gone advert - but they also told Express Newspapers:

to ensure future front-page flashes did not misleadingly imply there was a discount offer inside the newspaper that could be redeemed without further significant conditions if that was not the case.

(Hat-tip to Dave)

Dating with Desmond

Today, the homepage of the Daily Star leads with three stories about the Jubilee. The next 'story' is this:

That's the fourth most important story of the day?

The headline and intro reeks of churnalism, but it's only when you read the article - which carries no byline - that you see how shameless it is:

Finding time to make new friends can be hard if you’re already juggling a million things on a daily basis.

And that’s something many of us with hectic lifestyles can identify with. Around five million Brits admit to being too busy to widen their social circle – but what’s the solution?

You need a fast, easy and affordable way to meet like-minded people to have fun with, be that grabbing a drink, chatting over a pub lunch or heading out to the cinema.

Well there’s never been a simpler or safer way to find what you want – and it’s quick, easy and free to join.

Whether you’re just looking for friendship, to date casually, or even a lasting relationship, [name removed], Britain’s newest dating website, promises to make it easier than ever before to meet people you click with in a safe, secure and trusted environment.

Forget anything you may have heard in the past about online dating. There’s a very good reason why more people than ever before are logging on.

Clearly, this is a sales pitch, not a news story. It goes on to name the website in question seven times, and links to the site on five of those occasions. 

An almost identical article about this dating site appears on the Express' website too.

Although churnalism among newspapers isn't exactly uncommon, this is particularly blatant. And when you click through to the dating website, it suddenly becomes clear what's going on here - at the bottom of the homepage it says:

Operated for Northern & Shell by The Dating Lab.

Richard Desmond's Northern and Shell also owns the Star and the Express.

Star's ad campaign for Big Brother begins

The front of today's Daily Star claims there is a 'Fury over Big Bro live sex show':

The article, by Peter Dyke, begins:

Big Brother bosses will spark a major controversy by screening a live sex show in the house.

A 'live sex show'? On Channel 5? Rather than on one of Richard Desmond's 'other' channels?

It sounds unlikely. And as the article goes on, it becomes clear this is hype:

Producers unveiled the luxury Las Vegas-style BB13 house yesterday and it contains the ultimate kinky bedroom.

They have cordoned off two double beds and surrounded them with mirrors and lighting.

It is a clear hint they want the randy wannabes to couple up and put on a rompathon.

So there is no 'live sex show'. And even if there was a 'live sex show' when Big Brother starts next month, broadcasting rules would limit what Channel 5 could show anyway.

Is there any 'fury', as claimed in the front page headline? No. The article does not name, or quote, any furious person or organisation.

So no live sex show and no fury. It is another of those headlines that editor Dawn Neesom would say was 'eye-catching' rather than true.

This is simply about one of Richard Desmond's papers plugging a show on one of his TV channels. Dyke remembers to give the date and time of the broadcast of the first episode of the new series.

It's not the first time the Star has misused 'live sex show'. On the front page on 3 December 2008, it claimed Britney Spears had performed a 'live sex show' on TV when in fact she had simply done a song-and-dance routine on Good Morning America.

And trying to sell Big Brother (and copies of the paper) on it's sex content isn't exactly a new tactic for the Star either. Housemates will 'strut their naked stuff' or the programme will be 'full of naked romps' or it will be the 'sexiest Big Bro ever'. So for today's paper to claim this is a 'shock plan' is nonsense. It's the same tired old 'plan' that the Star claims is afoot every year.

Helpfully, MailOnline's JJ Anisiobi has joined the ad campaign, copying-and-pasting the Star's article into a 'story' which claims the series is already 'courting controversy'.

Star clarifies Lineker headline

On Saturday, the Daily Star ran a front page headline about Gary Lineker which he said was a 'complete fabrication'. The headline claimed he had said the England football team were 'losers' but admitted when challenged that:

'Only says this in the headline, the story itself does not suggest this is your quote'

Yesterday, the Star ran a clarification on page two:

Gary Lineker has asked us to point out that his remarks about England as reported in Saturday’s Daily Star were meant as a light-hearted jocular reference to how overexcited we get at our prospects before a big football tournament and do not reflect his feelings about the current England squad.

Lineker tweeted:

He added:

(Hat-tip to The Media Blog)

Star: 'Only says this in the headline, the story itself does not suggest this is your quote'

Today's Daily Star says:

Soon after this front page emerged last night, Gary Lineker took to Twitter to deny he had ever said the England team were 'losers':

'Only says this in the headline, the story itself does not suggest this is your quote'. 

Like when they said Simon Cowell was 'dead' - it only said this in the front page headline, the story itself didn't actually say he was dead.

And when they ran the front page headline 'Cowell: My feud with Cheryl' which included the actual quote 'we haven't had a fight'.

And when they said a celebrity couple had 'kissed and made up' in a front page headline, when the story itself said no such thing.

And so on...

This morning, Lineker added:

When she appeared before the Leveson Inquiry, Star editor Dawn Neesom refused to admit the 'Cowell is dead' headline was complete rubbish, saying instead:

you only have a finite amount of words you can fit on a page 1 as a headline...it was designed to be an eye-catching headline.

(Hat-tip to Martin Baker)

An advert for an advert

There are offers on the front pages of Richard Desmond's papers almost every day. On Friday 30 March, the Daily Express and the Daily Star had this:

And on Monday 2 April, the same offer for a different supermarket:

So: £5 off a £40 shop at Tesco and Asda - with the promise of more details inside.

But it turned out that those promotions were simply existing offers running at both supermarkets. Those mentions on the front pages were simply adverts for an advert. Like this, in Monday's Express:

In other words, there was absolutely no need to buy the paper to get the offer.

Going by the comments on a couple of voucher and money saving forums, it seems several people were fooled by this.

Some have also mentioned contacting the Advertising Standards Authority. Here's 'Hanonymouse':

This one is ripe for the ASA - there is nothing on the front page that says this is an advertising promotion - and given that previously these HAVE referred to in-paper vouchers, this has to be against the rules. Waste of 30p and shoe leather!

Have complained to the ASA and Tesco - this is very underhand by whoever the promoter is - taking advantage of people who recognise the recent spate of cut-out vouchers and thought this would be the same. Surely if it's an advert and not editorial or a promotion, it needs to say so, especially as it's a BIG ad in the middle at the top of the front page.

(Hat-tip to James Holden)

From the Mike Sullivan archives

Yesterday, the Leveson Inquiry heard from Mike Sullivan, crime correspondent at the Sun and one of those recently arrested by officers from Operation Elveden.

During his evidence, journalist Samira Ahmed tweeted:

Ahmed had reported on the murder of Rochelle Holness at the time, and had interviewed Rochelle's mother for Channel 4 News.

The Sun's article, written by Sullivan, Alex Peake and Tony Bonnici, was untrue. It said (and still says):

The claim that the victim was 'STILL ALIVE' came from an anonymous source:

One source said: "The flat was covered in blood, which points to the fact Rochelle was alive when her body was cut up."

The anonymous source does not say anything about Rochelle being 'strapped to a table' however.

It wasn't just the Sun - the Daily Star also claimed:

"murdered schoolgirl Rochelle Holness was cut up with an electric saw while she was still alive — it was feared that she was dismembered while her heart was still beating."

Yet Rochelle was already dead when she was dismembered, according to the post mortem. 

Speaking in May 2006, after John McGrady was given a full life sentence for Rochelle's murder, her family:

criticised two tabloid newspapers which published lurid and false details about the case...

"We hope those responsible for causing us so much unnecessary pain will today feel the shame that has so far been absent, for their behaviour has been as inhumane as John McGrady's."

The Press Gazette reported:

The Holness family's lawyer, Andre Clovis, told Press Gazette that two stories in the red-tops had been particularly disturbing for the family. He said they appeared after Rochelle's body was found, but before the family had received details of the post-mortem findings.

He said: "Before they had received any feedback from the pathologist via the police, there were these articles written by these two papers."

And:

Clovis said that the pieces caused a rift between the family and the police — because they wanted to know why they were not being told this information first. He added the family found the stories extremely upsetting — not least, because the information was not true.

He said that the post mortem found that Rochelle had been dead for at least 15 hours when her body was mutilated and that there was no evidence that blood had been splattered over the flat.

He said: "When you are reporting about these issues you have got to report them sensitively because there are people involved. The family were devastated because they believed these stories."

Clovis added:

"We've sent in 30 other press cuttings from various other newspapers to the PCC to show that the rest of the reporting has been extremely sensitive. The question is why these papers felt they had to go a step further. The others reported the graphic details but didn't invent things and didn't try to make it any more gruesome than it was."

Mike Sullivan was also partly responsible - along with Anthony France - for a 27 April 2007 Sun article headlined 'Bondage killing of Muslim mum' which began:

A mum of four found murdered in her car boot was wearing rubber bondage gear, cops revealed yesterday. Last night they were investigating whether Muslim divorcée Janet Hossain, 32, was killed in a kinky sex session which got out of hand. She was wearing just the fetish outfit, which included belts and chains, and there were no obvious signs of injury.

This was almost completely untrue. Three months later, The Sun admitted:

Further to our article Bondage Killing of Muslim Mum of April 27 we would like to make clear the body of Ms Janet Hossain, of Manor Park, East London, was not discovered wearing bondage clothes as we stated. We apologise to her family for any distress caused.

So there was no bondage gear, no fetish outfit, no chains, no kinky sex session.

Are those two sentences really enough to atone for the 'distress caused'?

Remember the words of Sullivan's colleague Trevor Kavanagh, in his infamous 13 February rant about the situation at News International?

It is important that we do not jump to conclusions.

Quite.

(Hat-tips to Samira Ahmed and septicisle)

Russell Grant and Eurovision

It was announced last week that Engelbert Humperdinck is to represent the UK at the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest.

This may have come as something of a shock to readers of the Daily Star. On 17 November 2011, the paper said the person being 'lined up' to sing for the UK was...Russell Grant:

Peter Dyke's article includes a quote from a conveniently anonymous source, who says:

“He’s camp just like Eurovision. But he can also sing and dance, unlike some of our past entries.

“We’re looking for someone who will bring the fun back to the contest so it would make sense to ask him."

The only attributed quote in the article comes at the end and is from Grant. He points out such reports are:

"very premature"

Indeed.

One week later, the Evening Standard had a different role lined up for Grant:

Russell Grant is set to host of the Eurovision Song Contest.

The 'Strictly Come Dancing' star - who left the ballroom competition last weekend - is the frontrunner to present the BBC's coverage of the annual singing competition next year, taking over duties from Graham Norton.

A source said: "Russell would be perfect for Eurovision. He's well and truly in the nation's hearts after his amazing routines on Strictly and would bring his unique humour and zest to the show. 

Another anonymous source.

It's not clear where the suggestion Norton was being replaced came from. But the BBC's press release announcing Humperdinck as the UK act ended with confirmation that commentary for the 2012 event will indeed be done by...Norton.

But that wasn't the end of Grant and Eurovision. On 28 December 2011, the Sun came up with a different tale:

Astrologer Russell Grant has been asked to represent MALTA at Eurovision.

Organisers from the Mediterranean island got in touch with the flamboyant star after he impressed them with his turn on Strictly Come Dancing. 

Malta? Oh yes, according to another anonymous source:

A pal said: "He was thrilled but a bit perplexed to be asked to represent Malta as he has no link to the country.

"The only Maltesers he knows are in a box of chocolates. But he was really flattered."

Yet there's an interesting comment under this article, from one of the 'organisers' in Malta that, the Sun said, had 'got in touch' with Grant:

'Absolutely garbage and completely untrue'.

An article on Malta Today elaborates on this denial:

Eurovision Malta chief organiser and PBS chief executive Anton Attard described the report as "absolute nonsense".

Attard explained that he didn't even know Russell Grant, however he did not exclude that the British media got it all wrong.

"Mr. Grant may have been contacted by any composer who would have offered him a song, and we do not go into that as long as the competition regulations are observed," Attard said.

He added that from the long list of entry submissions made to the organisers, Russell Grant's name never featured. The time for submissions has meanwhile been closed.

And last month it was announced that Malta would be represented by Kurt Calleja.

So three articles about Russell Grant and Eurovision, and not one of them turned out to be true. The papers clearly need more reliable anonymous sources.

Richard Desmond and the McCanns

At the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday, there were intriguing exchanges about the McCanns between a clearly unimpressed Robert Jay QC and Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star. Desmond coughed up £550,000 in damages for a relentless barrage of defamatory articles and all his papers published front page apologies which read:

The Daily and Sunday Express have taken the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.

We did so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.

We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted.

As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.

Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.

We assure you that we hope Madeleine will one day be found alive and well and will be restored to her loving family. 

Here's how some of the exchanges went at the Inquiry:

Q. But isn't it fair to say, Mr Desmond, that if you look at the hard facts, I think the McCann litigation involved 38 defamatory articles. It is right, and Mr Ashford has drawn to our attention that there are other newspapers who also perpetrated defamations, but not to the same extent as your papers.

A. Is that -- I'm not sure that's right. I'm not sure that's right at all.

Q. If it's wrong, Mr Sherborne here, who -- the McCanns are his client -- will demonstrate that in due course, but it's certainly my understanding that we're talking about 38 defamatory articles over a four-month period and that your paper was guilty, if I can put it in those terms, of the most egregious and serious defamations, and other papers were guilty of defamations of perhaps less severity in terms of quantity. Do you accept that?

A. Once again, I don't wish to minimise it, right? But four months is -- let me see now, it's 12 weeks?

Q. It's 17 weeks, on my reckoning.

A. 17 weeks, thank you. 17 weeks times 6 -- you have to help me again.

Q. 102, is it, Mr Desmond? I don't know. You're the businessman.

A. Well, I don't know. 102, very good. Is 102.

Q. Yes.

A. And there were 37 --

Q. 38.

A. I'm not trying to win points here, because we did do wrong, but I could say there were more, if there were 102 articles on the McCanns, there were 38 bad ones, then one would say -- and I'm not trying to justify, please, I'm not trying to justify anything, but you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones.

In other words: yes, we may have accused the McCanns of 'selling their daughter for money and hiding her body in a freezer', but hey, some of our other articles were 'good'.

Yes, you 'could argue' that, although it's hard to see why you'd want to.

Moreover, just because the stories weren't defamatory doesn't make them 'good'.

Desmond continued later:

A. At the end of the day, the McCanns, you know, as I understood it, although I've never met them, were perfectly -- if we ran it for four months, you know, it took them a long time to get involved in a legal dispute with us. They were quite happy, as I understand, in articles being run about their poor daughter, because it kept it on the front page. I think it was only when new lawyers came along, who I think were working on a contingency, that the legal --

Q. I can't --

A. Well, that's the facts. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. Mr Desmond I'm going to interrupt you.

A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. That must be a grotesque characterisation.

A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

Q. Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of having killed their daughter. Are you seriously saying that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?

A. I'm sitting here --

Q. Just think about the question before you answer.

A. I'm going to answer your question, and I've already answered it. We ran -- on your suggestion, we've run 102 -- your figure, 102 articles. For four months you say we ran it, right? Nothing happened, to the best of my knowledge, until a new firm of lawyers were instructed, who were on a contingency, that then came in to sue us.

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said in response to Desmond's evidence:

"Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice. For him to suggest that Kate and Gerry were happy with Express Newspapers' coverage, he must be living in a parallel universe." Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughters' disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme", he added. He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured.

Still, at least Desmond's many apologies to the McCanns sounded genuine. Didn't they?

But once again, please, I do apologise to the McCanns. I'm not trying to -- I am very sorry for -- you know, I am very sorry for the thing and I am very sorry that we got it wrong, but please don't, you know, try and -- every paper was doing the same thing

...

once again I do apologise to the McCanns, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but there are views on -- there are views on the McCanns of what happened. And there are still views on the McCanns of what happened.

Somehow, ending an apology with 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' doesn't suggest it's entirely heartfelt.