'Lack of care' (cont.)

When the Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint about the Daily Star in September, it said:

...the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

The PCC is always telling us that adjudications are a serious punishment. Just yesterday, blogger Jamie Thunder published an interview with the PCC's public affairs director Will Gore which said:

One common criticism of the PCC is that it has no power to fine newspapers for serious or repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct, but Gore says that this “massively underestimates” the impact of the PCC’s adjudications on newspapers and editors.

Because we would hate to 'massively underestimate' the power of the PCC, we must assume that the Star has been ever-so careful to make sure the same 'lack of care' has not been present in other front page stories since that adjudication.

Right?

Well, they didn't do very well with the 'Chile mine to open as theme park' one. Or with the two 'reality TV' headlines on the same day which weren't exactly true either. And then there was the 22 October one about someone being 'out of X Factor' despite, at time of writing, that person still being 'in' X Factor.

And here's today's Daily Star:


Any similarity to the latest edition of new! magazine which, like the Star, is owned by Richard Desmond, is purely coincidental:


(As if that wasn't enough cross-promotion, one new! columnist was recently explaining how 'his friend' Richard Desmond would do 'fantastic things' at Channel Five.)

Essentially, today's Star is simply an advert for today's new!. The front page article even ends with the words:

To read the full story, buy new! magazine out now.

But the 'full story' - if it can even be called that - is already in the Star. Is reality TV 'star' Amy Childs really Peter Andre's 'new love', as claimed on the front page and in Gemma Wheatley's article?

Peter, 37, told new! magazine: “Amy has a massive following and has the potential to be a huge star. I’m meeting her in a couple of weeks.”

So his 'new love' is someone he hasn't even met? And previously he has said:

I do know that Amy is only 20 years old and therefore a little bit young for me! I’m very flattered but I think dating someone 17 years younger than me might be a bit weird.

So if she isn't his 'new love', how can Jordan be in a 'fury' about it? According to this tweet, she isn't.

It appears, then, that none of the Star's front page headline is accurate. Again.

And yet there are still cynics out there who 'massively underestimate' the impact of PCC adjudications...

Council doesn't 'force' schools to do anything about Ramadan

So soon after the 'Muslims force pool cover-up' story that wasn't quite true, a similar story surfaces in the Mail:


Telegraph:

Star:

Express:

and on the BBC:

The wording of some of these headlines, as in the swimming pool cover-up one, suggests this is something being 'forced' on people to 'appease' the whims of Muslims.

Here's how the Star reports it:

Headteachers have been told to stop sex education lessons during Ramadan to avoid offending Muslims.

Council bosses are also set to enforce strict rules to ban swimming lessons and even exams during the Muslim holy month.

Now it is worth skipping straight to the end of the Express' article to show how accurate all this is:

Labour councillor Ruth Rosenau, said: “It is just asking schools to be more aware. We are not trying to impose any rules.”

A council spokesman yesterday stressed it was up to individual headteachers whether or not to implement the guidance.

Ah. And this comes just a few paragraphs after the Express calls it a 'diktat'.

So Stoke-on-Trent Council issue some guidance which schools can implement or completely ignore, and this is turned into headlines about what schools are being 'forced' to do because of them Muslims.

(It is reminiscent of the 'England shirts banned from pubs' headlines which sprung up before the World Cup, a deliberate misreporting of some police guidance which landlords could listen to, or not.)

But once it's clear that schools do not have to abide by this guidance, the outrage inherent in these articles looks as hollow as usual.

The council document is actually made up of extracts from a 2007 Muslim Council of Britain report Towards Greater Understanding: Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools.

The elements of the guidance the media has picked up on - about exams, swimming and sex education - are all listed in the MCB's booklet as 'features of good practice'.

But neither they nor the council in Stoke-on-Trent are demanding they all be adopted. Phrases such as 'appropriate consideration' and 'try to avoid being scheduled' are evident; phrases such as 'we demand' are not.

For example, on swimming:

In general, participation in swimming is an acceptable activity whilst fasting.

However, for many pupils this activity may prove to be an issue, as the potential for swallowing water is very high. Some pupils or parents consider the risk too great and may wish to avoid swimming whilst fasting. Others may take the view that as swallowing water is unintentional it does not break the fast.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.

And on exams:

It is inevitable that certain statutory and internal school examinations may fall during Ramadan. Schools should give appropriate consideration when scheduling internal examinations, since the combination of preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils.

Several of the headlines refer to 'avoiding insulting/offending Muslims'. It is a nasty little phrase that's become all too popular with stories such as this.

But are these suggestions about 'avoiding offending Muslims', or about schools being sensitive to the religious beliefs and wellbeing of their pupils? As 5CC says, why is it the latter is so often reported as the former by the tabloids, and blown out of all proportion?

And they're blown out of proportion for a reason. The tabloids know this 'special treatment for minorities' narrative goes down very well with their readers - never mind that most of it is highly exaggerated if not outright lies.

Yet believe it or not, some of this reporting is actually a very slight improvement on media coverage three years ago when the MCB report first came out. The Express claimed the MCB wanted to:

Ban un-Islamic schools

and had drawn up proposals that were disgracefully labelled as:

calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions

If this blog had existed then, that article would almost certainly have been mentioned...

UPDATE: 5CC did exist in 2007 and did blog about the Express' article. He called it 'bullshit'.

(Hat-tips to 5CC, Liberal Conspiracy and readers Chris and Midge)

More shameless lying from the Star

Even by the recent standards of lies on the Star's front page, today's may just top the lot:


This would would seem to suggest that Peter Andre and ex-wife Jordan had had a 'bust-up' in a 'nightclub', where one of them revealed their 'hidden feelings' in an 'astonishing rant'. The pictures have been deliberately selected to show the two looking angry and weary at night.

But the story by Gemma Wheatley isn't even close to that:

Bitter Peter Andre has been branded a spoilsport after refusing to let Jordan lookalikes into his show.

The star, 37, was forced to act after a radio station handed out free tickets to fans who were the spitting image of his ex-wife Kate Price, 31.

Ten big-busted beauties were handed £28 front row seats at Liverpool Philharmonic Hall.

Bosses at the local Radio City station were eager to see the look on Peter’s face when the curtain went up.

But when Peter and his management found out about the stunt they vowed to turn away anyone who looked like Kate at the door.

So a radio station tried to get a bit of free publicity by pulling a stunt where they would get Jordan look-a-likes into a Andre gig and his management stopped it.

That's it.

Where is the 'astonishing rant'?

Where is the 'bust-up' between Andre and Jordan, when she actually hasn't said or done anything to do with this 'story'?

And since when is the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall called a 'nightclub'?

Given that all these stories are about a named person, the chances of any third-party complaint to the PCC getting anywhere are slim-to-none. Yet surely they have to stop a paper writing such obviously misleading headlines, designed to sell papers (it's working) through deliberate lying.

Don't they?