Sorry we said you had criminal record

Today's Daily Star published the following apology to Garry (brother of Cheryl) Tweedy:

In Court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Garry Tweedy for an article published on 13 April in which we incorrectly reported that Mr Tweedy had admitted on his Facebook profile that he had been to prison a few times.

We accepted that Mr Tweedy did not post this comment nor has he ever been charged or convicted of a criminal offence nor been sent to prison. We apologised to Mr Tweedy for this error.

Not only has the Star apologised, but they have agreed to pay damages and legal costs to Mr Tweedy. It adds to a long line of recent libel payouts by Richard Desmond's Express Newspapers.

Heat magazine will also pay damages and apologise, after they first published the false claims. The Guardian explains:

Heat's front page article on 12 April, headlined "Cheryl's family from hell", featured a photograph of Tweedy with the caption "[Garry Tweedy] reveals prison past on Facebook".

An article inside that edition of the weekly was headed "US dream in peril thanks to Cheryl's family misfortunes" and made a number of false statements about Tweedy, his solicitor Steven Tregear said in a statement read out at the high court on Tuesday.

The Daily Star falsely claimed in an article published on 13 April, headlined "Cheryl in peril", that Tweedy had admitted on Facebook that he had been in prison a few times. "The Facebook profile [the Daily Star] relied upon was a fake," Tregear said. "[Tweedy] did not post the comment and he has never been charged or convicted of any criminal offence or sent to prison."

The Star's latest source for a front page exclusive: a psychic

As the tabloid media continues its frenzy over the murder of Jo Yeates, today's Daily Star claimed an 'exclusive':


So who is this person who 'knows' who did it? What is the 'new evidence' they have provided? Jerry Lawton, responsible for the infamous 'GTA: Rothbury' article, explains:

A psychic has told police she sketched Jo Yeates’s killers only days before the murder.

Carol Everett says she saw the pair in a premonition she had about the landscape architect’s death.

The psychic investigator insists she “saw” Jo being attacked by two of a group of five men after she rejected their offer of a lift.

She said she did not realise the significance of her vision until Jo’s body was found three weeks later.

Carol, who claims her drawings have helped police in 20 previous cases, came forward after officers arrested Jo’s landlord Chris Jefferies, because she was certain detectives had got the wrong man.

The psychic – who handed police drawings of Soham double child killer Ian Huntley before his 2002 arrest, and claims she drew Washington sniper John Allen Muhammed – said she sketched Jo’s killing on December 7, 10 days before she vanished. “I just knew there was going to be something with this drawing,’’ she said. “I had a feeling about it.

The psychic goes on to give the height, age and race of the two men she thinks are guilty, which is quite irresponsible. As Jonathan, at No Sleep Til Brooklands says:

ultimately this kind of unfounded speculation from a single source who has no knowledge of the case can't be helpful, particularly when she's allowed to toss out potentially serious misinformation like this

Jonathan also looks at her 'contribution' to the Soham case:

She claimed to have drawn Huntley and Maxine Carr before they were arrested, a claim which seems impressive at first but falls apart when you scroll down to the untouched image, which has 'Carr' with beyond-shoulder-length hair, and an utterly generic white male drawing which claims Huntley has blue eyes (he doesn't)...and isn't even sure whether the thing on his head is hair or a scarf.

Jamie Thunder, who has also blogged about today's Star, calls it a 'disgrace':

I can’t imagine how this must make Joanna Yeates’ family feel. To have a national newspaper exploiting her death by printing pathetic, desperate, unfounded claims from a publicity-seeking fraud (or ‘psychic’) under a headline promising some sort of hope.

The Daily Star. Because sometimes losing your daughter just doesn’t hurt enough.

(Further posts about today's dreadful coverage - including the Sun's offer of a reward and Mail linking the murder to Facebook - from Roy Greenslade, Anorak and Angry Mob)

When a newspaper makes a mistake, it's a Small World

A few days ago, a story emerged of a mother who had been given a suspended jail sentence after she had seriously neglected her three children, and her dogs, because she had become obsessed with an online computer game called Small Worlds.

But picking up agency copy without checking the facts for themselves, the Mail and Sun have accused the wrong game of being involved in the case.

The Sun's (now-removed) article said:

A mum let her two dogs starve to death and neglected her three kids after becoming hooked on online game Small World.

The Mail's article by Jaya Narain, which is still online, claimed:

The 33-year-old woman played the Small World game almost non-stop on the internet for months while her children were reduced to eating cold baked beans straight from the tin with their fingers.

Both papers identify Small World, instead of Small Worlds. Small World is not an online game but a board game. It is available on the iPad but not in an online version. And it isn't on Facebook, as the Mail (inevitably) claim. The game's publisher, Days of Wonder, has responded:

In a classic case of “Google Journalism”, erroneous press reports from British newspapers, the Daily Mail and the Sun that implicate Days of Wonder’s Small World board game have spread like wildfire over the internet.

The stories mistakenly blame the Small World board game as the reason a British woman neglected her children and let the family dogs die because she was so addicted to online game play.

We can only assume that the so-called “journalists” mistook Small World, for a similarly named online virtual world.

While unable to spend a few minutes fact-checking to learn that their story could not be possibly true (Small World has no online play – the only digital version is the two player Small World for iPad); they were able to search our website to download graphics of the board game and further smear our name.

They continue:

Days of Wonder categorically states that the Small World board game is not in any way connected to this tragic story and we are asking the papers in question retract their stories.

And a statement from Days of Wonder CEO Eric Hautemont says:

"One wonders if reporters check their sources! The information published on the websites of the Daily Mail and the Sun has spread like wildfire on the Web. The copyrighted images attempting to incriminate our Small World game have circulated from England to Australia and no one bothered to check if this was indeed the right game in question."

He adds:

Days of Wonder is currently considering legal action regarding this misrepresentation of the Small World board game and hopes the newspapers responsible for these defamatory statements will give similar coverage to a retraction.

It seems the Sun have taken note and taken their article down. When will the Mail?

Moreover, this wasn't the only error in the Mail's article. Originally, they had included a screenshot from yet another game, Warhammer, which also wasn't involved in the case.

According the Willard Foxton, Warhammer's lawyers had the image removed from the article yesterday afternoon and received an apology.

When will Days of Wonder receive the same?

(Hat-tip to Dick Mandrake)

The Mail's war on Facebook continues

In March, the Mail came unstuck when it tried to blame Facebook for something that actually happened on another chat site. Facebook flexed its muscles and the paper quickly apologised.

But that hasn't meant any end to the Mail's war on Facebook. Far from it. Indeed, recently there's been a story every day or two which has centred on the social networking site, very often erroneously.

On 6 April, the Mail was trying to pin another murder on Facebook.

Murder quiz boyfriend 'met schoolgirl knife victim on Facebook' covered the death of Aliza Mirza and focused more on the social networking site than the coverage in other places, where it was hardly mentioned (exception: the Telegraph).

A few days before that: Facebook's wrecking my daughter's future, which has been written about at Angry Mob. In this article, writer Simon Mills told how he'd bought a laptop, iPhone and £250 iTunes account for his 15-year-old daughter and complained about how she then spent a lot of time on her computer.

Oh, and she spent a lot of time in her room, replying to parental concern with monosyllabic answers. Which teenagers never did before Facebook, obviously.

On 2 April, the Mail came up with Number of crimes involving Facebook 'leaps 346% in a year' which was about as truthful as the 'Facebook causes syphillis' one. As Anton revealed, the headline should have said:

reports of crimes allegedly involving Facebook in Nottinghamshire.

Because that was what it was really about. And the number of people actually charged was six. Up from three.

DS Parsonage said:

'For crime that involves communication, Facebook is just a method of communication. Essentially Facebook is no different from any other part of the internet.'

That's not what the Mail wants to hear. And presumably that means where people used to harrass people with nuisance phone calls and poison letters, now they use social networking sites as well/instead. But that can't be right, as Facebook invented all these social problems.

It gets worse:

DS Parsonage said: 'We don't know what part Facebook played in each offence. All we know is at some point within each crime there is some mention of Facebook.'

Oh. A spokeswoman for Facebook added the stats:

did not specify how Facebook featured in the crimes, including whether Facebook aided investigations or if the police received help from the company in securing a conviction.

So Facebook might help fight crime? No, that can't possibly be right either...

Because as the Mail reported the day before that: Jealous ex-boyfriend executed mother and daughter, 4, after discovering Facebook romance.

The first line:

A secret affair started on Facebook may have provoked a shooting which left three people dead

Only 'may have'? Hmm. Later in the article, the woman's boyfriend says that the killer had a history of violence, but the Mail thinks Facebook's more relevant to the killings than that.

The day before: Jail for teenage girl who posed with machine gun on Facebook as she fulfilled her dream of being a gangster's moll.

Amy Goodman was jailed for three years for the illegal possession of a gun and ammunition. The pictures on Facebook actually helped prove the case against her. But the article also says:

Goodman, from Urmston, had been friends with gangster Daniel Brown, 21, and regularly communicated on MySpace with a senior thug in the Lostock Crew.

Yet there's no mention of the Murdoch-owned MySpace in the headline.

In Schoolboy stabbed at Victoria station in 'pre-arranged fight' had been watched by Chelsea scouts on 28 March, the Mail said:

Friends of Sofyen, who was of Moroccan origin, said the fight could have been arranged on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Later it also mentions it might have been MSN.

Also towards the end of March, Janet Street-Porter weighed in, referring to Facebook as:

harmful, if not deadly.

The Mail added a headline about Facebook being a:

toxic addiction

a phrase she never actually uses.

But she does use this piece of hyperbole:

Going online to chat is like taking crack. It's so addictive, you soon find yourself constantly tweeting, texting, messaging, emailing. Mostly harmless bilge, but for vulnerable teenagers it's a drug that can end in death.

The day before that nonsense, Teenage girl missing after going to meet a man she had fallen for on Facebook. At the end of the article:

Police are exploring 'the possibility that Demi had met with someone she's met on the internet'. A spokesman said she had communicated with Sefa through Facebook and MSN chat.

So it may not be anything to do with Facebook or the internet, then?

And curiously, the Mail didn't see fit to mention that Demi was found two days later.

A few days before that was the pathetic syphillis story and some claims about Facebook breaching privacy rules.

Just prior to those two, the Mail dreamt up How posting holiday details on Facebook could push up your home insurance premiums.

It's one that you know is rubbish before you even read it. As someone who has recently taken out a new home insurance policy, I can categorically say none of the forms asked if I was on Facebook.

The language was telling:

Householders are facing... Insurers are now looking to...

And then the killer quote, from an insurance 'expert':

'Insurance providers are seriously thinking of taking this into account when they are assessing claims and we may in future see insurers declining claims if they believe the customer was negligent'.

In the comments, Matt from Dunstable dismisses this as 'typical Daily Mail scaremongering'.

The Mail? Scaremongering about Facebook?

Surely not...

Sun, syphilis and social networking

The Sun's front page today contained what may well become a classic headline:


No, not the 'scanner', but the one at the side. Facebook 'spreads syphilis'.

Presumably that's on top of the cancer Facebook will give you if you believe the Mail.

The Sun said:

Cases of syphilis have increased four-fold in Britain's Facebook capital as users meet up for unprotected sex, it was revealed yesterday.

Figures released last month showed that people in Sunderland, Durham and Teesside were 25 per cent more likely to log on regularly.

And an NHS trust chief said Facebook and similar sites were to blame for a shocking rise in cases of potentially-lethal syphilis in the region.

Except, that's not quite true. The original statement from NHS Middlesborough doesn't mention Facebook at all. It does say:

Unprotected sex, especially with casual partners, is the biggest risk for syphilis. Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. It is important that people avoid high risk sexual behaviours and practise safe sex to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.

Which sounds like unprotected sex is being blamed for the rise. Not Facebook.

Why have certain sections of the media become so obsessed with blaming the social networking site for everything going?

And more importantly, does the Sun think that stories about sexual health are unimportant unless they're linked to some topical, but totally irrelevant, hook?

The Sun's attack on Facebook is even more pathetic given that the agenda behind it is so obvious - rival social networking site Myspace is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The Telegraph and Mail were quick to follow the Sun's lead and mindlessly repeated the story. But the reader comments were very critical of this nonsense.

Delightfully, however, the Mail moderators let through this comment which mentions this blog. And no, I didn't write it:


Thank you Scott - and all the green arrow clickers.

(More on the syphilis story from Dr Petra Boynton. And thanks to Jeff Pickthall for spotting the comment.)

Mail's latest attack on Facebook backfires

Much has already been written about the Mail's face-off with Facebook.

David Steven has been on the case and his frequently updated post is well worth reading.

Other articles are available at the BBC from Rory Cellan-Jones, the Guardian and at 5CC who puts the story in a wider context.

In short, the Mail ran this story prominently on its website and in a two-page spread in the print edition:


It was based on some online research by former cop Mark Williams-Thomas.

But he didn't do that research on Facebook, as the Mail's headline claimed.

The description of having people trying to chat with him within 90 seconds didn't even sound like the way Facebook works.

According to Williams-Thomas, he was sent a draft of the article by the Mail but they ignored his requests for the inaccurate references to Facebook to be removed.

Mail Assistant Editor Charles Garside blamed it on 'miscommunication'.

Given that in the past the Mail has accused Facebook of giving you cancer, destroying your marriage, raising your insurance premiums, rotting your children's brains, making you fail exams, putting you in a coma, causing riots, making you commit suicide, promoting gangster culture and causing you to be stabbed and strangled that seems unlikely.

Look at the front pages from Tuesday and Wednesday:














The Mail has a bizarre, obsessive hatred for Facebook and will try and blame it for whatever it can, and in the wake of the Ashleigh Hall case, stories about teen girls 'meeting' pervy men online were the order of the day.

The website headline was soon changed, and all references to the site removed from the text. But the Mail couldn't work out how to change the URL for some time, and so the slur remained.

And, apparently, all attempts by Facebook to post correcting comments were rejected by the Mail's moderators.

With Facebook threatening to sue, the Mail added this 'clarification' to the article:

In an earlier version of this article, we wrongly stated that the criminologist had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.

And another clarification (not apology) was published on page four of today's newspaper:

In an article by a criminologist yesterday, we wrongly stated that he had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages.

In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.

Three things stand out. Firstly, note how the printed clarification blames 'an article by a criminologist' rather than an article by the Mail's Laura Topham. This feeble blame-shifting is all too common in clarifications and apologies. Why can't the Mail just admit they got it badly wrong? And why can't they just say sorry?

Secondly, although the original story was prominent on the Mail's homepage yesterday, the printed clarification can only be found by searching for 'facebook'. 'Due prominence', as the Editor's Code says, should mean it was mentioned from the homepage like the original.

Thirdly, when faced with the threat of court action by a huge worldwide company such as Facebook, isn't the Mail's back-peddling notably quick to appear.

Compare that with the member of the public who complained about Richard Littlejohn blaming Eastern Europeans for 'most' robberies in Britain, where the Mail took six weeks to reply to the PCC over the issue.

According to Channel 4 News' Ben Cohen, Facebook have rejected the Mail's apology (which it wasn't, anyway) and plan to go ahead with their legal action because of the damage to their name caused by the Mail article.

Let's hope they do, so the Mail can be properly held to account.

For once.

Sun resolves Nutt complaint - when will the Mail follow suit?

Back in November, the Sun did a disgraceful hatchet job on Stephen Nutt, son of sacked Government drug advisor Prof. David Nutt. Stephen was in no way a public figure and publishing photos from his Facebook page was an invasion of privacy, with no public interest angle and simply shoddy and cheap journalism.

Needless to say, the Mail published the same story soon after:

Both articles soon vanished because of an inevitable complaint to the PCC. And the issue has now been resolved following publication of a letter from Stephen Nutt in the Sun:

Further to your article about photographs of me on my Facebook site, (November 14) I would like to make clear the pictures were not posted by me and while I had been drinking I was smoking a rolled-up cigarette which did not contain cannabis as the article insinuated.

My younger sister Lydia was not intoxicated, so was not drinking under age. My older brother lives in Sweden where it is custom to use a sauna followed by a ‘romp' in the snow in winter. He was neither drunk nor under the influence of intoxicants.

Innocuous photographs were taken out of context in an attempt to discredit my father's work.

With Nutt agreeing to the letter, the Sun have avoided having to print any retraction or apology.

But since the original article appeared online, not just in the printed version, the letter must appear there too. But as yet, it doesn't.

Moreover, the PCC do not record the Mail publishing any such letter either in the paper or online. So not for the first time there seems to be a disconnect in how the same story is corrected by different papers.

Is it that the PCC doesn't know how to hold the Mail to account in this case without a complaint, or that it doesn't want to?

The dangers of Facebook, part 97

The Mail is claiming a woman was killed because she changed her status on Facebook from married to single.

The story reveals:

The jury heard cracks began to appear in the couple's relationship due to financial problems after he lost his job. As a result, Hayley found work as a care assistant having previously stayed at home to look after their children.

The headline - Jealous husband 'murdered mother-of-four after she changed Facebook status to single' - just blames Facebook.

So that's Facebook giving you cancer, destroying your marriage, raising your insurance premiums, rotting your children's brains, making you fail exams, putting you in a coma, causing riots, making you commit suicide, promoting gangster culture and now causing you to be stabbed and strangled.

Unlike aspirin, it seems unlikely the Mail is going to change its mind on Facebook anytime soon.

Facebook wrecks your mental health, makes you poor

The Sun - Tabloid Lies recently revealed the latest Facebook scare stories, which showed the networking site can make you a victim of bullying, and can give you a nervous breakdown.

Now the Mail is claiming using Facebook will make you have higher insurance premiums.

Recommended reads

Septicisle has posted on how The Sun has 'forgotten' to mention (the Murdoch owned) Myspace in a negative story about the site.

While reporting on the same story, the Mail decides Facebook is partly blame for promoting gangster culture. Well it's to blame for everything else, so why not?

Meanwhile the BBC has done an interesting (and somehow, sadly unsurprising) undercover investigation which appears to show housing agents are discriminating against ethnic minorities. The same day, Sky News did an undercover investigation about dog breeding.

Facebook - now it makes you suicidal!

This story started life in the Sunday Telegraph, but it's little surprise the Mail has picked it up given its history of accusing Facebook of breaking up marriages, putting you in a coma, gives you brain damage and/or cancer and makes you thick.

So it would never miss reporting on Archbishop Vincent Nichols saying Facebook can make you commit suicide.

Facebook terror continues

The Mail's latest example of Facebook signalling the end of the world is a party that turned into a 'riot'. They aren't the only ones who covered it - Google News shows the Guardian, Mirror, BBC, PA, Scotsman and Telegraph did too.

But the presentation of the Mail's story deserves comment. For one thing they claim there were '150 unwanted guests' which - added to the wanted ones, suggests a far larger gathering than Hampshire Police who said it was 100. Indeed, the police claim 30 people were involved in anti-social behaviour and not all 150 as the Mail implies.

The party was organised by two neighbours - 17 year old Jordan Wright and 15 year old Seva Nurueva. Here's the Mail's third sentence:

But far from regretting the damage and disturbance caused by the party, one of the teenage organisers said: 'It was wicked.'

Which may well be accurate, but is it the whole story? The Mail goes on to quote a concerned neighbour and Ms Nurueva's dad, who expresses his outrage. But why do they not quote Seva herself?

Because in both the BBC and Guardian versions, she says:

'We are really sorry for all the damage we caused. It was scary - I did not really know what to do. All I did was cry.'

But because the Mail wants to portray all kids as feral and out of control, it chooses to ignore her apology and regret, and instead focus on the other idiot. Because young people, with their Facebook, are sure to get Mail readers in a tizzy.

So much so, that one commentator on the Mail story writes:

Time to get rid of the internet. It's far to dangerous. We survived long before it was around and will long after it's gone.
- sub, london, 20/7/2009 11:55

Surely, surely that's a joke?

Recommended reading

5CC finds the latest James Slack classic isn't all it's cracked up to be (surprise) - Britain isn't more violent than US, South Africa or anywhere else in Europe.

Over at Angry Mob, Lois Lane has written about the Mail's article on Body Dysmorphic Disorder - ironic given the Mail's obsession with finding fault with the look - and especially weight - of celebrities (such as Leona Lewis and Jennifer Love Hewitt). And their bizarre fascination with knees.

Meanwhile Uponnothing posts on the Mail's latest Facebook scare - it nearly destroyed a marriage!

At Enemies of Reason, Anton comments on the differences with 'final photos' of Diana and Michael Jackson, courtesy of Richard Desmond; and on the latest PC ban on crucifix nonsense.

Lady Scamp finds the Mail is now making stories out of the comments left on their other stories.

Now Facebook puts you in a coma

After blaming Facebook for cancer, brain damage and making you fail exams, the Mail is now running a story accusing the social networking site of putting someone in a coma.

Not revising = bad exam results exclusive

Here's some shock news from the Daily Mail - students who spend a lot of time doing other things when they should be revising don't do so well in exams.

This is the stunning conclusion of this story: Pupils who spend time on Facebook do worse in exams, study shows. It's based on some academic research, although this is the type of stating-the-bleeding-obvious stuff that gives academic research a bad name.

This is the latest in the Mail's bizarre anti-Facebook obsession. First it gave you cancer. Then it rotted the brains of children. Now it makes you crap in exams.

In fact, the research was based only on university students, and I don't think anyone calls them pupils, as the headline does. There are lots of things you can call uni students, but pupils isn't one of them. But using this word makes it seem like your children are at risk. Again.

Beyond parody (cont.)

Last week, Facebook was giving everyone cancer. Now it is damaging the brains of children.

In Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist (24 Feb 09), Susan Greenfield makes this stark warning. And what scientific study is this claim based on? Umm, well, there doesn't seem to be one. Instead, 'Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others.'

So a story from an old teacher becomes a front page story about the dangers of social networking. Weird to pick on Facebook and Twitter and not the internet in general, but then it's quite weird to pick this claim and treat it as a serious story.

(This nonsense has also appeared in The Guardian)

Beyond parody

Daily Mail. 19 Feb 09. How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer.

No further comment is required.