MailOnline, the Middletons and the Olympic advertising rules

On Thursday morning, the lead story on MailOnline was about the Middletons and their business Party Pieces:

'Breach of strict laws'. 'Flouting the law'. 'Criminal offence'.

It sounded serious, although the tell-tale inclusion of 'could be' in the headline suggested otherwise. The article by Rebecca English said:

Kate’s sister Pippa, who writes an accompanying blog called The Party Times, is also taking a risk with a piece entitled Celebrate The Games And Support Team GB which provides links to many of the items on sale.

And although the firm is careful to avoid the most blatant breach of the stringent code – mentioning the actual word ‘Olympics’ – if you put Olympics into Party Pieces’ own search engine it takes you to their Celebrate The Games page, which could still be grounds for action.

Just after 5pm the same day, the Guardian reported:

The party planning company owned by the Duchess of Cambridge's family has been hurriedly cleared by London 2012 organisers of infringing brand protection laws, but will be asked to make "minor changes" to its website.

Locog said it would investigate the Party Pieces website, owned by the Duchess of Cambridge's parents and featuring a blog by her sister Pippa, after it emerged it was offering a range of Olympic-related goods in a section of the site headed "Celebrate the Games" and illustrated with the Olympic torch...

But following an investigation, a Locog spokeswoman said: "There are no infringements and the products are fine. We may ask them to make a very minor change to some copy."

At time of writing, over 36 hours after the Guardian's piece was published, MailOnline has not written an update for its readers. Given the prominence they gave to the original claims, they should.  

This comes less than two weeks after an attack on the Middleton family by Mail columnist Amanda Platell, who seemed very upset Pippa had been seen in the royal box at Wimbledon. The Middleton's now 'have an unsettling air of snootiness about their behaviour,' she said.

(Hat-tip to Jonathan Haynes)

'NOT Matt Willis from Busted'

Yesterday's Sunday Mirror reported that ex-Busted singer Matt Willis was suing 'trip-hop star' Tricky over unpaid management fees:

The Guardian and NME soon repeated the story but they have now deleted their articles. Why? Because the Matt Willis involved in the case is not the one who used to be in Busted.

Willis tweeted:

And this was posted on Tricky's Facebook Wall:

(Hat-tip to James McLaren)

UPDATE: James has now covered the story for BBC Wales Music.

'Claims were so quickly reported as fact'

One day in May, the Mail's website led with the story of Ian Faletto:

(image from Angry Mob)

The Mail wasn't the only media outlet to cover the story. In the Express, Richard and Judy said it was:

another health and safety loony tune

In the Telegraph, Jenny McCartney wrote:

A sad story from our railways: Ian Faletto, an award-winning stationmaster at Lymington Pier, Hampshire, saw a shopping trolley on the railway lines, which had the potential to cause an accident. He requested that the power be turned off, and then jumped on to the lines in protective shoes to remove the trolley.

A week later, a district manager saw the incident while reviewing CCTV footage, and found that the power had not, in fact, been turned off. Mr Faletto was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and given the sack...

Unless there is some other aspect to the case which South West Trains is not willing to reveal, it would seem that Mr Faletto's very enthusiasm has made the authorities uneasy. The rest of us, however, could do with many more public employees like Mr Faletto, who appear – within sensible limits – to be even more concerned about other people's safety than their own. 

But South West Train's side of the story was never fully revealed. As the BBC reported:

A South West Trains spokesperson said an employee had been dismissed for a “serious breach of safety” but refused to officially explain what this was.

“This action was taken following a full and thorough internal investigation and the decision was also upheld at an appeal hearing,” he said.

This didn't stop the Mail and others deciding South West Trains were definitely in the wrong. It was 'all down to elf 'n' safety' and an over-reaction from 'Elf 'n' safety tyrants'.

The latter was a headline on a comment piece by Richard Littlejohn, who said:

The sacking of Mr Faletto is beyond disgusting. Whoever runs South West Trains should be thoroughly ashamed.

He should be reinstated immediately with a grovelling apology.

And that was that. The media moved on.

A tribunal to consider Faletto's claim of unfair dismissal was to be heard on 1 November. The Mail, Telegraph, Express, Star and Sun haven't updated their readers on what happened. But the Guardian has:

A railway worker who claimed he was sacked for removing a shopping trolley from the track has withdrawn his claim of unfair dismissal.

Ian Faletto alleged he was sacked after 27 years of service by South West Trains for removing the trolley at Lymington railway station in Hampshire...

But after he was presented with new evidence, his counsel advised him to drop his claim, prompting a strongly-worded statement from SWT. It described the allegations by Faletto as "fictitious, Walter Mitty-style claims" and the company stressed he was not paid off.

The statement from SWT Director Jake Kelly is, indeed, strongly-worded:

''We are pleased that Mr Faletto has finally withdrawn his case, which proves definitively that there was never any substance to the claims he made.

''However, we remain angry at the way these fictitious Walter-Mitty-style claims were so quickly reported as fact. It is also doubly upsetting that many well-meaning people in community were so misled.

''This was a matter of principle and integrity and we were fully prepared to outline the truth to the employment tribunal.

''We are confident that they had heard all of the evidence, they would have found in our favour. For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so.

''As we have maintained all along, this case involved a serious breach of safety. The fact is that there is no evidence to show that there was a trolley on the track, as Mr Faletto claimed, and the safety of our passengers was not compromised at any point.

''The only safety risk was caused by Mr Faletto's foolhardy actions in knowingly stepping down onto an area of live track for no justifiable reason.

''No 'trolley' incident was recorded in the station log or reported to management at the time - or even when Mr Faletto was first questioned by management.

''There was no evidence either of any call to a signalman or station.

''We are not interested in a box-ticking or jobsworth approach to these issues and the decision to dismiss Mr Faletto was not taken lightly.

''It is very sad that an individual who was recognised by the railway has acted in this way.'' 

Mr Faletto does, however, stand by his version of events.

The BBC, Guardian and Mirror all reported that Faletto withdrew his unfair dismissal claim and quoted Kelly's statement. Given that that happened several days ago, it looks unlikely the papers who did so much to champion Faletto six months ago are going to update their readers on the case.

(More from Zelo Street)

'Overly optimistic'

The front page of Wednesday's Daily Express saw the paper proclaim another 'miracle cure':

A 'pill to beat alzheimers'. The paper's health correspondent Jo Willey explained:

A daily 10p vitamin pill could prevent millions of people being struck down by Alzheimer’s disease.

Research has found that vitamin B can help protect the brain from dementia.

A large daily dose of a combination of three types of vitamin B has been shown to slow mental decline in the elderly who suffer from mild memory problems.

Only a few months ago, Willey and the Express were claiming 'cake' was a 'cure' for dementia. That article claimed:

cinnamon, used in everything from cakes to curries, could be the “holy grail” in slowing or even eradicating dementia in patients.

Now it's Vitamin B:

The breakthrough could lead to a simple new treatment for people at risk of dementia which would be the “holy grail” of research into Alzheimer’s.

Skip to the end of the article and there's the inevitable clarification:

Professor Robin Jacoby, research author and Alzheimer’s Society trustee, said: “These studies add weight to the argument that vitamin B is good for our brains.

“However, people shouldn’t rush out and empty the shelves of vitamin B tablets. More research is needed to establish if it could prevent dementia.”

And the NHS Behind the Headlines team express further doubts:

While its results look promising, this small, well-conducted study does not show that vitamin B can help prevent dementia. However, it suggests that high doses of the vitamin may help some people with MCI, which sometimes develops into dementia. A larger trial is required to explore the possible role of the vitamin in slowing progression to dementia.

They add:

Newspaper coverage of this research has tended to be overly optimistic about the study’s findings. For example, the Daily Express described vitamin B supplements as a “Pill to beat Alzheimer’s”.

The Express also listed some “natural ways to beat dementia”, which include eating meat, fish and vegetables.

This information is misleading, as none of these foods has been found to prevent dementia. While the foods listed in the Express can be dietary sources of vitamin B, the amount of vitamin B in the pills used in this study was extremely high, and the study’s authors have been quoted as saying that they should be considered to be medicines rather than regular vitamin supplements.

The Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent also covered this research.

Trevor Kavanagh agrees with the 'unauthorised' tweet about who's to blame for the News of the World's demise

On Saturday night, the @Sun_Politics Twitter feed issued a tweet blaming Ed Miliband, the BBC and the Guardian for the demise of the News of the World. They chose not to blame Rupert or James Murdoch, nor Rebekah Brooks nor the activities that led to the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone.

The tweet was deleted an hour later, following much criticism, with the claim that it was:

not authorised, and not the paper or its political team's opinion.

So some people may be surprised to read Trevor Kavanagh's article in today's Sun. Kavanagh is a former political editor and current associate editor of the paper. After admitting the final News of the World brought 'a lump to the throat' he goes on to point his finger of blame as those he thinks responsible:

We also offered a priceless opening to Ed Miliband, a weak leader who seized his chance to turn on a newspaper group that supported his party through most of its 13 years in power.

Politics is about opportunism, and if he can't squeeze capital out of this catastrophe at David Cameron's expense, then he's no politician at all.

So it's Ed Miliband's fault. Anyone else?

What is thoroughly contemptible, though, is the posturing, high-minded and politically prejudiced BBC. This media monster, which blows £2.3BILLION a year in public money, is bound by charter to be impartial and is anything but.

Its gleeful, vengeful and downright spiteful coverage of events over recent days is a disgrace.

Not for nothing is the BBC known as the Blatantly Biased Corporation...

Nothing other than a declaration of war would justify its round-the-clock analysis, interviews and breaking news on every radio, TV and internet outlet.

He doesn't mention that Sky News has been giving the subject much the same blanket coverage over the last few days, but then he wouldn't would he?

Anyone else to blame?

Many newspapers published in Britain today would have perished but for Wapping - including, perhaps, the high-minded and sanctimonious Guardian. And millions benefit from Rupert Murdoch's audacious creation of Sky TV - now at the heart of his enemies' campaign against him.

He was fought every inch of the way by The Guardian, which somehow sees itself as custodian of the sacred journalistic flame.

It is a small circulation paper whose readers mostly work in the taxpayer-funded public sector. But its Left-wing views are amplified out of all proportion by the BBC who, with breathtaking arrogance, portray themselves as the Voice of Britain.

So there you have it. Two days after the Sun's political team delete a tweet blaming 'Ed Miliband, the BBC and the Guardian' for News International's troubles, claiming it was 'unauthorised' and 'not the paper's view', the associate editor of the Sun blames 'Ed Miliband, the BBC and the Guardian' for News International's troubles.

Kavanagh adds:

This column might seem like the work of a Murdoch mouthpiece.

Well, that's one thing he's got right.

(Hat-tip to Jim Hawkins)

'Inaccurate and purposely misleading'

The News of the World, 12 July 2009:

Despite purporting to represent the highest standards in journalism, the Guardian's reporting was inaccurate, selective and purposely misleading.

It is a fact that one former News of the World journalist - Clive Goodman, the Royal Editor - tapped into telephone voicemails.

And they wanted to be clear:

So let us be clear. Neither the police, nor our own internal investigations, has found any evidence to support allegations that News of the World journalists have accessed voicemails of any individuals.

Nor instructed private investigators or other third parties to access voicemails of any individual.

And:

...like the rest of the media, we have made mistakes.

When we have done so, we have admitted to them.

(Via Alexis Petridis)

'Giving you the inside track'

@Sun_Politics is the Twitter name of 'The Sun's political team' who bill themselves as 'giving you the inside track on Westminster'. At around 8.21pm tonight, they tweeted their views on the demise of the News of the World:

Just over an hour later, after much criticism:

Recommended reading: phone hacking denials

The Guardian has collected some of the very 'best' denials about phone hacking from News International, the police and the PCC.

For example, this News International statement from July 2009 following Nick Davies' first Guardian story on hacking:

"All of these irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations against News of the World and other News International titles and its journalists are false."

And this from Rebekah Brooks:

"The Guardian coverage has, we believe, substantially and likley deliberately misled the British public."

No, Mr Dacre, I expect you to apologise

Today, the Mail has published the following apology to James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli:

Further to our August 15 and 16 articles "Axed film quango gave £70m to own members" and "Charity that really must start at home", we wish to clarify that it was never our intention to suggest that Barbara Broccoli had awarded herself a huge grant or indeed any grant of public money or had misused any funds. We accept that the grant was properly made to a registered youth film-making charity, First Light, of which Ms Broccoli is unpaid chair of trustees. We apologise to Ms Broccoli for any embarrassment.

What that apology doesn't make clear is that it comes with 'substantial undisclosed libel damages'.

The Press Gazette explains:

The action stems from a story headlined: "Axed film quango gave £70m to own members" which appeared in the Mail on Sunday on 15 August, 2010. According to a statement read out in open court yesterday, the allegation was repeated the following day in the Daily Mail's Peter McKay column under the heading: "Charity that really must start at home"...

Her solicitor Michael Skrein, from Reed Smith, said: "So, she did not award herself or her own company any grant whilst a board member of the UK Film Council and she has not misused public funds.

"The offending publications were deeply upsetting to the claimant and her family and harmful to her reputation."

The court heard that the allegations were repeated elsewhere online, including on The Guardian's Comment Is Free website.

The Guardian adds a further comment from Skrein:

Associated had made clear that it had no intention to accuse Broccoli of any wrongdoing and had made an offer of amends – which involved payment of substantial damages, which she intended to pass to First Light, and her legal costs, and the publication of apologies.

New York Times investigates what most of the British media won't

The New York Times has published a damning, and rather depressing, investigation into phone-hacking at the News of the World.

It repeats convincing claims that the practice was far more widespread than the paper has ever admitted and once again implicates then-editor Andy Coulson:

One former editor said Coulson talked freely with colleagues about the dark arts, including hacking. “I’ve been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy” when the subject came up, said the former editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The editor added that when Coulson would ask where a story came from, editors would reply, “We’ve pulled the phone records” or “I’ve listened to the phone messages.”

It must be said that much of the New York Times' article is based on anonymous sources, a fact that has been used by the News of the World to (surprise) dismiss the allegations.

Managing Editor Bill Akass' letter to the NYT accuses the paper of being involved in nothing more than a smear of a rival newspaper company (whereas the Times and Sun would never dream of running articles sniping at the BBC, say).

But he also claims:

Every area addressed by your questions has already been...put to, and answered by our executives during public hearings conducted by the Committee.

Anyone who saw those hearings, and heard those executives repeatedly 'answer' with 'I don't remember' and 'I don't recall' will know what nonsense that is. The Select Committee report called it 'collective amnesia':

Throughout we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detailed information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall, and deliberate obfuscation. We strongly condemn this behaviour which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.

The NYT also makes serious allegations about the Metropolitan Police, questioning why it seemed to have severely limited its investigation and why it appeared so reluctant to inform other people that they may have been hacked. The paper points out that the police commissioner who led the investigation, Andy Hayman, is now a columnist for the Times.

But there's one other serious question raised by the article - and that is for the British media.

At the time of writing, the Guardian - who have led the way in investigating this story - and the FT have followed up on it, as have the Press Gazette, two people at the Spectator and Gary Gibbon at Channel Four News. But the rest of the mainstream media are completely ignoring it?

Why?

Your headline has not been recognised...please try again

A WHO report on the risk of brain tumours from mobile phones was reported on like this:

Guardian - Mobile phone study finds no solid link to brain tumours.
BBC - No proof of mobile cancer risk, major study concludes.
Independent - Mobile phones do not raise risk of brain tumours, say scientists.
Daily Mirror - 'No proof' of mobile phone cancer link.

And, like this:

Mail - Long conversations on mobile phones can increase risk of cancer, suggests 10-year study.
Telegraph - Half an hour of mobile use a day 'increases brain cancer risk'.

And yes, they're all about the same study.

So who is right? Well, would you believe a cancer scare story in the Mail?

From NHS Behind the Headlines:

Some newspapers have selectively quoted a few results in this research that suggest a significant link, but this is misleading in the context of the overall results. The researchers themselves explain these few anomalous results, and conclude that there are no conclusive signs of an increased risk of brain tumours.

Overall, this study does not provide evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, a finding echoed by the majority of studies on the matter, although sadly not by most newspapers.

And from the Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which published the report:

'An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone'.

Anton has more.

When not trying to frighten people about getting cancer from phones or from turning on lights at night, the papers love a good 'miracle cure' story.

Last week the Mail ran: 'Holy Grail' cancer vaccine that blasts tumours in weeks hailed as huge leap in fighting disease. The Express went with Cancer scientists hail ‘huge’ leap towards jab that targets tumours.

But these weren't quite right either. According to Cancer Research UK:

Not only are these headlines overhyped and misleading, but the stories themselves are slightly confusing, combining the launch of a clinical trial with newly published results from a completely different area of research...

While cancer vaccines and immunotherapy are very exciting areas of research that we’re actively involved in funding, this story itself does not represent a ‘huge leap’ forwards.

Using such language is at best misleading and at worst cruelly raises false hopes in cancer patients and their families.

Muslim attitudes and attitudes towards Muslims

At the end of January, an academic research report from the European Muslim Research Centre at the University of Exeter said that media coverage of Muslims was a factor in Islamophobic attitudes and hate-crime.

Almost all the media ignored the report. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

One who did step in to fight her corner was Melanie Phillips. As the report had suggested the use of the term 'Londonistan' was unhelpful, and that is the title of Phillips' BNP-approved book, that was to be expected.

Two of her arguments deserve comment. One was this ridiculous straw man:

The attacks on British Jews, which mean that every single Jewish communal event has to be guarded and Jewish schools now shelter behind razor wire, are coming from both white racists and Muslims.

But there’s no mention of that in this study.

So Phillips was actually criticising a report entitled Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: a London Case Study for not covering attacks on Jews.

And then there's her view about whether the media influence anti-Muslim opinion:

This study claims effectively that such commentary incites violence against British Muslims. There is not one shred of evidence for this.

But she goes on to say:

Conversely, the authors make no acknowledgement of where 'truly' false and irresponsible reporting has indeed inflamed violence against a vulnerable British minority.

The way the British media reports the Middle East incites irrational hatred not just of Israel but also Jews in general.

She puts 'truly' in italics to make it clear that Muslims never suffer 'truly false' reporting (what about this or this?). But her argument is that while there is not a 'shred of evidence' that media coverage incites violence against Muslims, the British media is very responsible for inciting violence against Jews.

She says if Muslims are associated with terrorism that's because:

There is a significant terrorism problem among British Muslims.

But if people dislike Israel, it's nothing to do with the actions of the Israel and all because of false reporting.

If you believe the media has the power to incite hatred against one group, why can't it inform opinion and incite hatred against another? You can't really have it both ways.

(And as for the 'significant terrorism problem among British Muslims', it's worth remembering, as Seamus Milne reported in the Guardian, that Europol figures show 99% of the terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three years have been carried out by non-Muslims.)

Within two weeks of Phillips' piece, there was an attack on the Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Tennessee. Crusade-style crosses and the words 'Muslims go home' were scrawled on the building in red spray paint. And:

A profanity-laced hand written note was also left behind that disparaged the prophet Mohammed and even advocated the eradication of Muslims.

Yet a few days before the attack, the Channel 5 local television station ran a report entitled 'Inside Islamville: Is a Local Muslim Community Tied to TERRORISM?' Although Channel 5 admitted there was 'no evidence' of terrorist training activity, it ran the two-part report anyway.

It was, wrote Jeff Woods of the Nashville Scene:

a new low in broadcast journalism in this city...

We hope Channel 5 managed to goose its ratings a little bit with this garbage. Otherwise, Beres succeeded only in inflaming anti-Muslim sentiments.

The next day, Woods was writing about the attack on the Islamic Centre.

Now it may be that the two events are completely unconnected - clearly Phillips would say they are. But it's a big coincidence given the attack happened within days of the reports being aired and given the previously good relations in the community. A spokesman for the mosque said:

'It’s unexpected...The only thing I can think of is the sensationalized reporting [by Channel 5] over Sunday and Monday. That’s the only thing I can think of. Even after 9/11 we have never had any vandalism.'

Think Progress have an in-depth look at the incident and the Channel 5 report.

A few days after the Tennessee incident, Dr Chris Allen wrote the following in the Telegraph:

Islamophobia does not appear to be being taken seriously by the Government, the media or the general public and the situation is becoming increasingly dire - why this is remains unclear.

It could be because of a lack of understanding and recognition of the seriousness of Islamophobia; it could be because little ‘hard evidence’ exists; it could also be that anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic attitudes are becoming more socially acceptable.

Whatever the reason though, it is clear that neither Islamophobia – nor indeed anti-Semitism – are going to quickly or easily disappear.

He tied the Exeter report to a shocking report from the Community Security Trust (CST) which showed a disturbing rise in recorded anti-Semitic incidents in 2009 - up 69% on 2008.

Yet while the CST report was covered in, for example, the Mail and the Express, the Exeter report on Islamophobic hate crime wasn't. Why the difference?

The same fate befell the report Attitudes, values and perceptions - Muslims and the general population in 2007-08. It reported:

Muslims had very positive views about the level of cohesion in their local areas; the vast majority felt that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their local area and that their local area was a place where residents respected ethnic differences between people.

Muslims also expressed strong feelings of belonging, both to their neighbourhoods and to Britain as a whole, and more than nine in ten Muslims agreed that they personally felt a part of British society.

In 2007-08 Muslims also expressed high levels of trust in institutions. They were more likely than the general population to say that they trusted Parliament and their local council and, similarly to the general population, around eight in ten Muslims trusted the police.

All of which gives a very good impression of British Muslims and how they view British society and its institutions. No wonder it was ignored...

In terms of perceptions of religious prejudice, Muslims and the general population believed there was a lot or a fair amount, and that this was up from five years ago.

97% of Muslims and 90% of the general population said there was more prejudice against Muslims compared with five years ago.

Perhaps most telling of all was the responses to a question about 'personally feeling part of British society'. 93% of Muslims agreed and 93% of all people agreed - a noteworthy similarity.

When asked about the most important values for living in Britain, 61% of Muslims said 'respect for all faiths', whereas only 33% of the population as a whole said the same. As a minority faith, Muslims would be more likely to say that is important, but the difference between those figures seems stark.

And it's worth remembering the Gallup Coexist Poll from May 2009 which showed that when asked about whether Muslims were loyal to Britain, 82% of Muslims said yes and 6% no. When the general population was asked the same question about Muslims, 36% said yes and 49% said no.

Why does the general British population have such a negative view of Muslims? According to Melanie Phillips, the drip-drip of biased, exaggerated, unpleasant or untrue media stories about Muslims doesn't even begin to explain it. But given that many millions of people read or see this stuff every day, how can it not have an effect?

There's an agenda behind highlighting stories involving Muslims far more than with people from other religions. Why, for example, were terrorists Terrance Gavan, Neil Lewington and Ian Davison given far, far less coverage in the tabloid newspapers than the case of a Muslim woman who was cleared of 'failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism'?

According to two comprehensive surveys, British Muslims feel loyal to Britain, identify with Britain and feel like they belong. They believe people get on well and and there's strong community cohesion. They exhibit a high degree of trust in parliament and local councils (more than the British population as a whole) and in the police. They believe in respect for ethnic minorites and for people from all faiths to a greater degree than the population as a whole.

Yet how often do we see the tabloid newspapers reporting on any of that?

Proper investigative journalism

Further revelations from the Guardian today about the News of the World and their involvement with private investigators.

The admirable Nick Davies, who has been at the forefront of uncovering this story, reveals:

the newspaper employed a freelance private investigator even though he had been accused of corrupting police officers and had just been released from a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail.

The private eye was well known to the News of the World, having worked for the paper for several years before he was jailed, when Coulson was deputy editor. He was rehired when he was freed.

And, he adds, this means we now know of four 'private investigators' who worked for the News of the World who:

have since received or had criminal convictions. All four are known to have used illegal methods to gather information.

As for the News of the World's 'collective amnesia' - as it was described in the MPs' report yesterday - the Guardian has gone through Coulson's testimony to the Select Committee and found that he didn't know or couldn't remember much about anything.

'Nothing to do with me guv, I was only the Editor'.

Reactions to the 'Press standards, privacy and libel' report

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has published its long-awaited report on Press standards, privacy and libel today. (Full coverage at MediaGuardian)

It is an extremely wide-ranging report and has many very good recommendations for changing the Press Complaints Commission, including several that have been supported by this blog. (The attempt to ban newspapers from printing for a day for serious transgressions is a very poor recommendation, however).

On the issue of fines, the Committee recommends that:

in cases where a serious breach of the Code has occurred, the PCC should have the ability to impose a financial penalty.

On the placement of apologies:

Corrections and apologies should be printed on either an earlier, or the same, page as that first reference, although they need not be the same size.

That would mean front page apologies for front page stories which are wrong. This change should be implemented immediately because the 'due prominence' wording in the current Code of Practice clearly is not working.

On sacking Paul Dacre as Chair of the Code of Practice Committee:

We further recommend that there should be lay members on the Code Committee, and that one of those lay members should be Chairman of that Committee.

Absolutely. However, there is a shocking quote in the report from Dacre. He told the Committee:

"It is a matter of huge shame if an editor has an adjudication against him; it is a matter of shame for him and his paper. That is why self-regulation is the most potent form of regulation, and we buy into it. We do not want to be shamed."

Firstly: bollocks. Secondly: Dacre and the Mail have shame?

The MPs added that lay members should be a majority on the decision-making Commission, which should also include journalists, rather than just editors:

We recommend that the membership of the PCC should be rebalanced to give the lay members a two thirds majority, making it absolutely clear that the PCC is not overly influenced by the press.

This, the Committee says, would:

enhance the credibility of the PCC to the outside world.

Which is, of course, urgently needed. The MPs add:

However for confidence to be maintained, the industry regulator must actually effectively regulate, not just mediate. The powers of the PCC must be enhanced, as it is toothless compared to other regulators.

It's all pretty damning about the PCC, but things will only improve if these changes are implemented to give the regulator those much-needed teeth.

It was also highly critical of the Daily Express, which several years ago refused to pay its subscriptions to the self-regulatory system. The MPs called this action:

deplorable.

From Peter Hill and Richard Desmond, that shouldn't be surprising.

But the report was especially damning about the News of the World over their illegal phone-hacking activities. The report says these were not restricted to one 'rogue reporter':

Evidence we have seen makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Clive Goodman, knew about the phone-hacking....[which] went to the heart of the British establishment, in which police, military royals and government ministers were hacked on a near industrial scale.

Moreover, the MPs are brutal in their judgements about the News of the World and News International employees who came before them:

Throughout our inquiry, too, we have been struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the News of the World.

And:

Throughout we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detailed information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall, and deliberate obfuscation. We strongly condemn this behaviour which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.

Ouch.

For a clear example of this amnesia, look through the oral evidence and the exchanges between Philip Davies MP, current News of the World Editor Colin Myler and Tom Crone, the Legal Manager at News Group Newspapers (Q.1411-1418).

Davies was trying to find out who authorised the payments to Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, the bin-rummager who did the phone-hacking, which was paid after their release from prison. As if they was being paid to shut up, or something...

Q1416 Philip Davies: Just while we are on the theme, has any payment been subsequently made to Clive Goodman?

Mr Crone: I am certainly not aware of it.

Mr Myler: Again, likewise, I am not aware of any payment.

Q1417 Philip Davies: If a payment had been made, would you be aware of it?

Mr Crone: Not necessarily. Mr Kuttner would.

Q1418 Philip Davies: So this is a question for Mr Kuttner?

Mr Crone: I would say so.

And when Stuart Kuttner, the News of the World's Managing Editor, came before the Committee later that day:

Q1578 Philip Davies: We are obviously not going to make any further headway there. Have you made any payments to either Glenn Mulcaire or Clive Goodman since they were convicted of their offence?

Mr Kuttner: So far as I know agreements were made with them. I have no details at all of the substance of those agreements and so I cannot go beyond that.

Q1579 Philip Davies: Could you tell us who can because when I asked Mr Crone the same question he seemed to think that you were the person to ask.

Mr Kuttner: Well, in which case that is simply not so.

So Crone said Kuttner would know. Kuttner said he didn't know and he didn't know who would know.

Given that Kuttner has been Managing Editor of the News of the World for 22 years 'collective amnesia' seems a rather generous description.

Needless to say, News International were not happy with the report. They issued a ridiculous statement (pdf) which whined that the Committee had failed to act without:

bias or external influence.

This comes after Crone (Q.1329) had tried to get Labour MP Tom Watson kicked off the Committee (he was suing The Sun at the time - and won) and Kuttner wanted Davies removed from it too (Q.1572).

'External influence' indeed.

The statement went on to complain about the Committee's:

innuendo

and

exaggeration

and said it had

repeatedly violated public trust.

For the publishers of the Sun and the News of the World to accuse others of those things is almost beyond parody.

The Sun's article on the 167-page report ran to just five paragraphs, which consisted of how the report had been 'hijacked' by Labour MPs. Had it really? Tom Watson said not:

570 clauses agreed unanimously, 4 were voted on, 3 of them opposed by a single MP.

That's some hijacking. As if to prove they had something to hide, the Sun were not taking any comments on this story on their website.

Their editorial was equally pathetic and designed to make petty political points, categorically failing to engage with the substance of the report:


Note 'unfounded claims' by the Guardian. Well, the Guardian's exposing of the News of the World's payment to Gordon Taylor wasn't unfounded. And if News International think it's all unfounded, why not sue?

Of course, the report did include many pages of insight and recommendations on privacy, libel and the McCann case.

But because the MPs dared take on the Sun's sister paper, its work was deemed 'worthless'. How grown up.

More astonishing was the reaction of Sky, which is in the same Murdoch stable as the News of the World, and which tried to pretend nothing had happened.

Here's the BBC's teletext news headlines this morning:


Second story. And on Sky Text it was here:


Oh rather, wasn't here. Still at least Sky News had it prominently on their website:


Oh no, it wasn't in their top 15 stories by early afternoon. Surely they wouldn't just bury it below some photo gallery of a pop star and a footballer:


Ah they would.

And even then it doesn't concentrate on the libel recommendations, or the reform of the PCC or the McCanns, that the Sun was complaining about. No, they've made it deliberately party political by referring to it in terms of 'Cam's man', as former editor Andy Coulson now works for David Cameron.

And on Tuesday night, during the Sky News press review, the News International line was already clear. They were faced with this:


What to do? Journalist Mark Seddon began to talk about the inquiry and the claims against the News of the World. Sat next to him was a journalist from the Times (also owned by News International), who butted in to say the phone-hacking had been looked at over and over and it's a non-story now.

Well, if the News International people would tell the truth for once, there wouldn't need to be constant enquiries into the sordid affair.

But at this point Anna Botting, the Sky News presenter, spoke over everyone to dismiss this whole story as a 'vendetta' from a 'left-leaning' newspaper which was aimed at Andy Coulson solely because he now works for the Tories. And she made clear that was the end of that discussion. It was dreadful.

And it clearly highlights the dangers of too much media being in the hands of too few people. The biggest selling daily newspaper and one of the two main TV news channels are all owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the News of the World.

And when not claiming some mythical political plot (the Chair of the Committee, incidentally, is a Conservative MP), they have decided the stick their fingers in the ears, shut their eyes and shout 'la la la', instead of telling their viewers about some important proposals to improve the press in this country.

The Guardian reports the Mail has done a short article, mostly avoiding the phone-hacking claims. The Telegraph has written more in general, but ignored the phone-hacking stuff. The Independent has given lots of coverage to News International's pathetic sound and fury.

So today we've seen parts of the media refusing to engage in a debate or admit to their own failings, while other parts try to intimidate and smear anyone who dares criticise.

How are things ever likely to change?

Immigration whistleblowers: spot the difference

Remember Steve Moxon?

He was the Home Office whistleblower who, in March 2004, told a Sunday broadsheet about a scandal in the immigration system. Migrationwatch rushed out a comment on the case. The following day, the tabloids repeated the claims and that Tuesday, the Mail and the Express had the story on their front pages.

Have you heard of Louise Perrett?

She is a UK Border Agency whistleblower who, on Tuesday, told a daily broadsheet about a scandal in the immigration system. Migrationwatch never issued a comment. None of the tabloids wrote a single word about her claims.

Why the difference?

Because Moxon exposed behaviour that was letting migrants in to Britain without the proper checks.

Whereas Perrett claims:

asylum seekers are mistreated, tricked and humiliated by staff working for the UK Border Agency

And why would the anti-immigration papers be interested in that?

Her claims are shocking:

One manager said of the asylum-seeker clients: 'If it was up to me I'd take them all outside and shoot them.'

And:

If a case was difficult, Perrett claims, she was simply advised to refuse it and 'let a tribunal sort it out.'

And:

staff kept a stuffed gorilla, a 'grant monkey', which was placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application.

And:

one official boasted to her that he tested the claims of boys from African countries who said they had been forcibly conscripted as child soldiers by making them lie down on the floor and demonstrate how they shot at people in the bush.

One method used to determine the authenticity of an asylum seeker claiming to be from North Korea was to ask whether the person ate chop suey.

As yet, these allegations haven't been investigated or verified, but that never stopped the tabloid press rushing to repeat what Moxon said.

But his claims were something that they wanted to believe because it made the immigration system look bad, and it made it seem as if Britain was letting migrants in unchecked.

These allegations make asylum seekers look like they might be being badly treated, like they might actually be victims.

And that just doesn't fit the tabloid agenda. So they pretend it isn't happening.

Preferring instead to write about buying quiche. And eggs with extra yolks. Twice.

(Hat-tip to Duncan Stott)

Apologies round-up

From Regret the Error, a few recent newspaper apologies.

The Mirror - sorry for mixing up victim and perpetrator in stabbing:

On 19 June 2008 we reported that Britain's Next Top Model finalist Jasmia Robinson's unnamed boyfriend, was in custody for allegedly stabbing a suspected love rival.

We wish to make clear that her boyfriend David Obanobi was in fact the victim of the knife attack and not the perpetrator and was not in custody.

We apologise to Mr Obanobi for the distress and embarrassment caused.

The People - sorry for using a photo of the wrong house:

On 20 December 2009 we published a story about Caroline Cartwight breaching her Asbo for noisy sex. However, the picture of her house was of a neighbouring property and the description of the house as 'an end of terrace' is incorrect.

We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Mrs Marjorie Ball for the error.

The Express (Scottish edition) - sorry for lying and invading your privacy

On January 18, 2010, we published an article within the Scottish Daily Express concerning the recent purchase of a property by author JK Rowling, entitled 'Party must’ve been wizard – Rowling pays GBP 300,000 extra to move straight into new mansion'.

In it we published two photographs of the inside of Ms Rowling’s new property. Further, we alleged Ms Rowling offered GBP 300,000 on top of the purchase price in order for the seller to vacate the property within two weeks so that she could hold a Christmas Party there, and, that Ms Rowling viewed only two rooms in the property before deciding to purchase it.

Not only do we now accept that our article was false and wholly inaccurate, we also acknowledge that we should not have invaded Ms Rowling’s privacy, and that of her family, by publishing photographs depicting the interior of her new property.

We apologise to Ms Rowling and her family for any distress that our article may have caused.

The Mirror (and the Guardian) - sorry for saying your school is full of bullies:

On Monday last, under the headline 'Saoirse: Pupils weren’t Lovely to me', we reported remarks attributed to actor Saoirse Ronan concerning her experience at school in which it was stated that pupils, teachers and staff at school gave her a hard time.

We identified the school wrongly as being Kilkenny College. We acknowledge that, contrary to our report, Saoirse Ronan is not a pupil of Kilkenny College and has never enrolled as a pupil or attended classes there.

We accept that the remarks were not made concerning any teacher, staff-member or pupil at Kilkenny College and we apologise to them for associating them with this story and for any upset or embarrassment caused as a result.

We accept that Kilkenny College is an educational institution which guards the interests of all its pupils with care and we withdraw any suggestion to the contrary in our report. We are happy to correct the position.

And, not yet on Regret the Error but sure to be soon...The Telegraph - sorry we implied you were a bit racist:

In our article “Newsreader sues ITV for colleague's 'racist mimicking'" (22 Nov 09), which referred to an Employment Tribunal claim brought by Lisa Aziz against ITV, we repeated allegations made by Ms Aziz against Steve Scott, the ITV newsreader, including an allegation that Mr Scott had made racially discriminatory remarks about some of his colleagues.

For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to make clear that we did not in any way seek to adopt or endorse any of the claims made against ITV or the allegations made against Mr Scott in particular. As referred to in our article, following an internal investigation by ITV - which it described as “full and thorough” - Mr Scott was cleared of the allegations made against him. We apologise to Mr Scott for any distress caused by any contrary impression our article may have given.

Myleene, Twitter, racists and terrorists: a round-up of links

Last week, Terrance Gavan - bomb-maker, gun-collector, immigrant-hater, BNP-member - was jailed for eleven years for 'collecting information useful for terrorism and possessing explosives and firearms'.

Both Anton and Uponnothing have done excellent jobs in examing the media coverage of his sentencing.

Anton looks at the difference in the coverage of Muslim terrorists and those from the far-right, whereas Uponnothing shows how uninterested the Mail seems to be when terrorists are white. They even put a non-story about a Muslim getting married higher up their homepage than the Gavan coverage.

Gavan didn't make the front page of any of the national newspapers. Would a Muslim convicted of hoarding 54 explosive devices and 12 firearms been similarly ignored?

Another post by Uponnothing that is well worth reading is about the comments left on the Mail article about the thug who poured bleach over a woman in a cinema after she had asked him to be quiet.

When the mugshot of 16-year-old Jordan Horsley was released, the fact that his skin wasn't white brought out the unrepentant racists:


All these comments had been moderated in advance - and thus deemed suitable by people at the Mail - and remain up ten days on, with even higher green arrow scores.

On a lighter note, last week's very suspicious story about Myleene Klass being warned by police for wielding a knife at intruders looked increasingly dubious. Marina Hyde in the Guardian had - unlike just about every other journalist who wrote about it, including ones at the Guardian and Observer - 'bothered to establish the chain of events' and discovered:

the initial call to police was not placed by Myleene but by a man believed to be her agent or publicist, to whom she was naturally on the phone at the time.

And:

As for the story's appearance in the Sun the very next day, Hertfordshire police state: "We believe the media found out about the incident following a phone call from Ms Klass's publicist to Emma Cox from the Sun."

And, not in the least bit suspiciously:

despite having given copious quotes and assistance on the story all week, both publicist and agent declined to discuss this yesterday.

Hyde then reveals that Klass seems to have a bit of form in, shall we say, exaggerating...

Elsewhere, the Sunday Express had two (alleged) journalists write up a feeble BBC-bashing story. The article by David Jarvis and David Stephenson was so poor and so inaccurate that it was deleted from the Express website before end of play Monday.

They tried to prove that BBC employees were wasting their time, and your money, by being on Twitter. Yes, bashing the BBC and new-fangled-technology in one.

The problem was they are inept and their research was even worse. They didn't understand how Twitter works and misunderstood the difference between 'followers' and 'following'. They claimed, for example, Victoria Derbyshire had two followers when she actually has over 3,600.

It was unbelievably pathetic. More so, because it appears Stephenson, the paper's TV critic, is actually on Twitter.

Full story at No Rock and Roll Fun.

And finally, hat-tip to badjournalism, Paul E Smith and Bitter Wallet for this tastefully placed advert in the Metro.

Mail doesn't put Haiti on front page, plugs free DVD instead

The horrendous events in Haiti dominate Thursday's newspaper front pages, with shocking images appearing alongside words such as 'devastation' and 'hell'.

Although leading with the McCann case, the Express is, unsurprisingly, the most sensationalist. It reports a death toll of 500,000 as a definite:

That figure came from Haitian senator Youri Latortue, although he 'conceded no one really knows.'

No matter that no one really knows, the Express decides to run it - as fact - on its front page anyway. As does sister paper the Daily Star ('500,000 are killed'), who manage to find a little corner for Haiti alongside a tedious lead about Celebrity Big Brother and Jordan.

The Metro, meanwhile, settles for 'up to 500,000' which is quite a margin of error.

Other headlines are more circumspect, and rightly so in such an uncertain situation. The Guardian says there are 'fears' the death toll could rise above 100,000. The Independent and the Times simply state 'thousands'. The Telegraph says 'at least 100,000'; the FT that it 'could be well over 100,000'. Even The Sun plays safe with its '100,000 quake toll fear' headline.

Curiously, the Mirror thinks it is appropriate to drag the title of a Nicolas Cage film into its coverage:


But at least the biggest news story of the day is there on the front.

Because one national daily newspaper (and only one) thinks Haiti isn't worth mentioning on its front page. Apparently, the Daily Mail and its Editor Paul Dacre, regard their Femail magazine and their free Poirot DVD as more important:

Philip Davies and the Mail: the real PC obsessives

The latest 'PC brigade ban Christmas' nonsense comes in today's Mail. The article comes with the headline: Tinsel Taliban strikes as Court Service ban staff from decorations to avoid offence because, obviously, people who allegedly want to 'ban' coloured lengths of cheap shiny plastic are just like the Taliban.

The story claims this: Tory Baroness Warsi has received an email from an admin worker at Warwickshire Justice Centre in Nuneaton who claims tinsel has been banned under the company diversity and equality police because it offends people of other religions. Namely Muslims.

Banning Christmas things because of Mulims, diversity and equality - it's a Mail wet dream.

Except, once you read the quote from the Ministry of Justice spokesman, you strongly suspect it's not actually true. The Mail begins the quote with this:

Last night a source at the Ministry of Justice admitted that tinsel had been banned at the front-office counter at the Nuneaton office.

Which suggests all the above is true. But then:

'Over the counter, yes, where sensitive business like fine payments takes place,' he said. 'For that reason. Otherwise there is tinsel and stuff elsewhere.

'Nothing was removed for religious or diversity reasons.

'One piece of tinsel was removed from a counter where it was getting in the way. The rest of the tinsel remains there as festive as ever.'

So decorations have not been 'outlawed' as the Mail claimed. They've not been placed where people paying fines might not want them in their face, and one piece of tinsel was moved because it was in the way.

That's all the Mail is actually reporting on here.

A piece of tinsel has been moved in an office block because it was in the way.

Of course, it's clear that the Mail journalist Daniel Martin hasn't actually been to the building in question to see for himself.

But then the Mail has never much cared whether these stories are true or not. All they care about is that they fit the agenda and view of Britain the Mail wants to make people believe is true.

The Mail aren't alone - Tory MP Philip Davies is also obsessed with this fictional 'PC gone mad' idea. A rent-a-quote idiot who has never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting, Davies is the 'parliamentary spokesman' for the Campaign Against Political Correctness. The CAPC, ironically, is run by two idiots who have never knowingly said anything meaningful or interesting.

The Guardian has revealed that rather than spending his time worrying about the serious political issues of the day, Davies has been bombarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission with letters asking questions such as:

Is it offensive to black up or not, particularly if you are impersonating a black person? PS I would be grateful if you could explain to me why it is so offensive to black up your face as I have never understood this.

It's just the type of comment that you would expect to read from a Mail reader.

Davies has said on several occasions that measures to tackle homophobic bullying are:

barmy, politically correct nonsense.

He said that Muslims should 'fuck off' in a made-up Sun story about an attack on a soldier's home in Windsor, which he then had to retract.

And now he claims he has 'never understood' why 'blacking up' is offensive.

Is it offensive to be a cretin or not, particularly if you are impersonating a Member of Parliament?

In the Guardian, Davies is quotes saying in response to these letters:

"Anybody who follows my career in parliament knows I'm concerned with the issue of political correctness. I'm merely pursuing a subject I raise more regularly than anyone else in parliament. It's one of my bugbears. Lots of people are castigated for being racist when that's not their intention."

Yes, but what about all those people castigated for being obsessed with political correctness based on half-truths and outright lies?

Barry George, Lotfi Raissi and the lies in the archives

The libel damages paid to Barry George by the News Group Newspapers over articles suggesting he was a murderer and a stalker are only the beginning in trying to get the public record corrected. There are still dozens of stories repeating those lies easily available on the internet, including on the websites of other UK newspapers.

Shouldn't steps be taken to remove them, without George having to go through another legal process?

It is another example of what happens when a lie gets published, then repeated and then it just enters urban myth. Recently we have seen this with the kids playing conkers must wear goggles nonsense, and that rubbish about the Bolivian saved from deportation by his cat.

Another example is that of Lotfi Raissi.

One of the most shameful cases of recent history, Raissi was the first man arrested for the attacks on 11 September 2001.

In an excellent report in the Guardian last month, Paul Lewis explained:

After a raid on his home, he would be described as the "lead instructor" of the hijackers, responsible for training four pilots to fly planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and spend the next five months in Belmarsh high-security prison in south-east London awaiting extradition to the United States.

Raissi was innocent. The court of appeal ruled that law enforcement officials 'circumvented' the law to keep Raissi locked up, and has since waged a long, hard battle with the Government to receive both an official apology and compensation.

If you search for Raissi's name on the Sun website, you will still find several articles containing the lies spread about Raissi.


Yes, it has the quote marks and 'alleged' in place, but there's no doubting the impression Pilot 'trained hijackers' gives. The following day saw Crew 'were taught in UK':


The story says:

A pilot living in Britain was accused in court yesterday of training four of the suicide hijackers who carried out the terror attacks on America. One of those instructed by Algerian-born Lotfi Raissi was the maniac who crashed American Airlines’ Flight 77 into the Pentagon, it was said... London’s Bow Street court was told investigators had video footage, phone records and correspondence linking him directly to the hijackers... Prosecutor Arvinda Sambir said: “What we say is that Mr Raissi was in fact an instructor. He was a lead instructor for four of the pilots that were responsible for the hijackings.

And the picture is of Raissi in a cockpit, just to hammer the point home.

In February 2002, when Raissi was released, The Sun still implied guilt with misleading headlines such as:


And:


Even when Raissi - and his brother Mohammed - were exonerated, the Sun focused on the compensation they were going to get, rather than any campaign on the gross miscarriage of justice:



And despite everything he'd been through, the MySun people weren't happy:

Five months in prison, stabbed twice, accused of involvement in the biggest terrorist atrocity ever and he's a 'spongeing get' (sic).

The following day, another version of the same story went with this headline:


Not 'Innocent man' but still the nudge-wink '9/11 suspect'. And the 'millions' is designed to cause outrage. It worked:


The archives on the Mail site are limited to six stories, the most recent from 2002, and none which really make clear his innocence, or his recent court victories. The article 'Detained pilot threatens legal action' begins:

A pilot held in a high-security jail for five months on suspicion of training the September 11 suicide hijackers today threatened legal action against the British and American authorities

thus conveniently failing to state he's innocent. They add he had:

demanded an apology

with the use of 'demanded' clearly suggesting something that's somehow unreasonable.

That article also says:

Mr Raissi claims he was threatened by both inmates and guards after his picture was published on the front page of a newspaper under the caption "the terror instructor".

The Independent adds:

Beneath banner headlines proclaiming him as "The Terror Instructor", Mr Raissi was described as the "mastermind" who had taught four of the 11 September terrorists to fly. He was, for many, evidence of an "alarming" British connection.

Not sure which paper that front page headline belonged to - Google and the newspaper websites are not coming up with anything - but in any case it would have been seen by millions of people. And it appears the PCC has not (publicly) dealt with any complaint from Lotfi Raissi either.

Given what that story accused him off, it seems only right that the same paper should print a front-page retraction. As should The Sun and News of the World about all the very serious claims made about Barry George. Indeed, front page corrections should be automatic for front page lies, and hopefully the PCC will move towards that after the current Code review.

Online stories such as those at The Sun on Raissi and the Express on George, which are still pushing false claims, should also be removed.

As for Raissi, one can only hope he gets the apology he deserves, and can then get on with his life.