Un-Dressed to Kill

The Mail has decided to start the year as it means to go on - by publishing an attack on the BBC:

This time, Paul Revoir has had help from Adam Sherwin to pad out the story claiming the BBC was 'under fire' over Sunday's episode of Sherlock and that:

Viewers yesterday complained that the BBC had gone too far with the raunchy scenes

But the BBC spokesman quoted towards the end points out that they had not received any formal complaints 'at this stage'. What the Mail has instead is three comments taken from Twitter (out of 8.75million viewers).

So how shocking were these 'raunchy scenes'? If you didn't see the programme, never fear: the Mail has published the key screenshots on its website (in an article posted at 7:37am) and included a 'big blow up picture' on page nine of today's paper.

The comments on the article are overwhelmingly critical of the Mail, with several pointing out the selection of headlines on the right-hand side of MailOnline. These headlines include:

• Victoria Silvstedt's white bikini barely contains her ample curves as she struggles to position herself on a sunlounger (with 20 pictures)
• How does she do it? Jessica Alba shows off amazingly toned abs in tiny bikini just four months after giving birth (12 pictures)
• Yummy mummy! Myleene Klass shows off her famous bikini body as she holidays in Barbados with her two daughters (12 pictures)
• She's all white! Maria Menounos shows off her incredible figure in flirty light bikini in Miami (11 pictures)
• Legally blonde (and curvy!) Reese Witherspoon shows off her enviable figure as she holidays with her children in Hawaii (6 pictures)
• Now that's more like it! Michelle Keegan finally strips to her bikini as she sets sail with fiancĂ© Max George (16 pictures) 

As one comment (Chaz McGlover, 10:48) puts it:

At least the nudity in Sherlock had some relevance to the plot, rather than just being an endless parade of women wearing little to nothing, presented as "news".

(Hat-tip to Chris G)

Mail reports on 'backlash' from 'outraged' BBC viewers

The Mail's fondness for making a 'news story' out of a few critical comments on Twitter or the BBC Messageboards remains undiminished.

Yesterday, the Mail reported on this 'outrage':

Yes, apparently viewers were 'outraged' that the presenter of a documentary filmed over more than one day was not wearing the same clothes every time she was on screen.

It is questionable whether such a question would have even arisen had the presenter been a man.

The Mail's John Stevens states:

many viewers appeared to have found it hard to concentrate on the show as several lingering shots showed Miss Maitlis striding through the sunny streets of California and Facebook’s headquarters.

Found it hard to concentrate? Really?

So what do these 'outraged viewers' have to say?

‘Think I learned more about Emily Maitlis’ wardrobe than about fb or Zuckerberg,’ one poster wrote on Twitter.

Another wrote: ‘I thought it was a docu about Emily Maitlis wandering about looking hot and occasionally stopping to chat to folk.’

While another viewer posted: ‘Did you catch the Facebook prog on BBC2 last night? More shots of Emily Maitlis in sunglasses than interview time with Mark Zuckerberg.’

It's not the most convincing display of 'outrage' ever. And at the end (of course) the BBC spokesman explains why:

The Corporation has received four official complaints about the documentary, but none have been out Miss Maitlis’ wardrobe.

A similar non-story emerged in the Mail after a da Vinci documentary presented by Fiona Bruce aired at the end of October. Once again, it was made up of what a few people had tweeted.

Today, Paul Revoir, the Mail's chief BBC-basher, reveals a new viewer 'backlash' - this time regarding audience cheering on Strictly Come Dancing:

Revoir says:

Strictly Come Dancing has been attacked by fans over the ‘cheering’ and ‘screaming’ from spectators during its broadcasts, which critics claim seem ‘stage-managed’.

A prime-time light entertainment show with 'stage-managed' cheering? Surely not...

He goes on:

After fans vented their frustrations on the BBC’s online discussion pages, the Corporation admitted it had received more than 30 complaints about the issue.

So once again we see Mail hacks scouring the BBC's own messageboards for any criticism it can blow up out of all proportion.

Still, 'more than 30 complaints'. How many more than 30? The BBC spokesman says (at the end of the article):

‘There have only been a total of 31 complaints since the series began three months ago, which is a very small amount given the show has been achieving peak audiences of more than 11million each week.’

31 complaints, over three months, out of 11 million viewers each week.

What was it Richard Littlejohn said yesterday about a 'phoney furore'?

The Mail and the BBC (cont.)

The Mail's obsession with publishing articles critical of the BBC continues apace.

A few weeks ago, the Mail produced its annual article complaining about the BBC's Glastonbury coverage. This time, it elicited a response from the BBC as well as this blogpost from No Rock N Roll.

Then on 14 June, the paper reported:

Hundreds of fans of the Antiques Roadshow have complained after the BBC axed the show on Sunday to make way for the Canadian Grand Prix.

It is likely that fans of Formula One would have complained if the BBC had cut away from the live coverage to show a pre-recorded programme that could easily be shown at a later date, so it was a no-win situation. The Mail would have had an article either way.

The same day, the Mail's regular anti-BBC hack, Paul Revoir, was reporting on the 'uproar' and 'backlash' caused by a scene in EastEnders:

EastEnders sparks uproar with gay bedroom scene before the watershed

An EastEnders episode that showed a gay couple apparently naked in bed has sparked an audience backlash.

At least 125 viewers complained that a scene featuring the characters Christian Clarke and Syed Masood was inappropriate for the show’s pre-watershed slot.

Revoir then goes into detail:

The pair were lying in bed together, with no tops on, and bedclothes pulled up to their chests. The two characters, who are trying to adopt and are planning a civil ceremony, also shared a brief kiss.

They were seen joking about getting matching rings and not changing their names when they tie the knot. Syed was seen with his arm draped around his partner as they cuddled up in bed in the short scene.

So: fictional couple cuddle in bed and talk about the future. Shocking indeed.

The episode in question was actually broadcast on 31 May and watched, according to BARB, by 6.89m viewers. Such was the 'uproar' that the Mail didn't notice this 'backlash' until two weeks later. It didn't even notice when the BBC issued a statement on 7 June, which pointed out:

We approach our portrayal of homosexual relationships in exactly the same way as we do heterosexual relationships, ensuring depictions of affection or sexuality between couples are suitable for pre-watershed viewing.

We would also point out that same-sex civil partnerships became law in December 2005, giving equal rights to gay couples in the UK.

The BBC cannot discriminate by treating gay characters differently to heterosexual characters.

We have also received a lot of very positive feedback about the storyline regarding Christian and Syed's relationship.

125 complaints out of 6.89m viewers is a tiny percentage. Revoir has, of course, found a few critical comments on the Points of View messageboards to include, but fails to repeat any of the positive remarks. He does, however, note the 77 messages of support the BBC had received - but they would never be the basis for a Mail article.

Today, the paper has turned to Liz Thomas for the BBC-bashing article of the day:


The article explains:

It is supposed to be one of the BBC’s most hard-hitting consumer affairs programmes.

But listeners have accused Radio 4’s You and Yours of broadcasting a ‘six-minute advert’ for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.

The programme featured an interview with the company’s managing director Rob Hunt by journalist Julian Worricker.

Fans of the show complained that two thirds of the programme featured an ‘unchallenged promotion for the firm’s products’.

In the final third, the paper admits:

issues such as health and obesity were raised.

It is refreshing that the BBC deals openly with reader complaints in programmes such as Feedback, Points of View and Newswatch even if it gives the Mail continuous ammunition to attack the Corporation. The Mail does not have such methods of dealing with complaints - they have no corrections column and no readers' editor.

The edition of You and Yours was broadcast on 13 June. It was only when the BBC dealt with the complaints on BBC Radio 4's Feedback - broadcast on 17 June - that the Mail leapt into action.

So all the quotes from Hunt and from the complainants, and the defence from You and Yours editor Andrew Smith, are straight transcriptions from Feedback.

According the Media Blog, which spoke to the BBC Press Office, only 13 people actually complained.

But the Mail's attempt to take the high-ground on reporting Krispy Kreme doesn't entirely ring true anyway.

On 3 June, the Mail reported it was National Doughnut Day in the US. Daily Mail Reporter wrote:

Time to make the donuts! Today is National Doughnut Day across the U.S. and national chains such as Dunkin' Donuts and Krispy Kreme are doling out the sweet treat to help Americans celebrate.

It then added:

Krispy Kreme is giving away one free doughnut of any variety to anyone who walks in to one of their 646 locations while Dunkin' Donuts is requiring customers to purchase a drink before they hand over the free dough.

Back in April, when a Krispy Kreme outlet opened in Cardiff, the Mail reported:

More than 1,000 sweet-toothed shoppers queued outside a new Krispy Kreme doughnut store to get their hands on one of the free treats.

And it was only too happy to repeat the words of one 'satisfied customer':

Student Ceri Lewis, 20, said: 'It was a lovely doughnut, well worth the two-hour wait. 'It was really good fun waiting in line. It was the best queue I’ve ever been in for having a good laugh, much better than geeks waiting for an iPad.'

This article - essentially, 'food shop opens in Cardiff' - is nothing more than a puff piece for Krispy Kreme. And, unlike in the You and Yours piece, there's no raising of 'issues such as health and obesity'.

The message from the Mail on this - as with the X Factor/sexual content issue - seems to be: do as we say and not as we do.

(Thanks to Jem Stone)

Mail attacks BBC over the 'burning' of the Blue Peter advent crown

The 6 December edition of Blue Peter began with a chain reaction machine that, eventually, switched on the Christmas lights in the studio.

Four days later, the Mail's regular BBC-basher Paul Revoir found fault:


So what 'tradition' are they referring to?

For generations, making the iconic Blue Peter advent crown has been an eagerly awaited part of the Christmas celebration.

This year, the BBC decided to do something a bit different – they burnt it.

As evidence of this 'burning', the Mail has published two pictures. One of the advent crown:


And one of the 'advent crown' meeting a 'flaming end on the studio floor':


You don't really need to be an expert in advent crowns to see that what is pictured in the first photo clearly isn't what is on fire in the second.

And this screenshot proves the crown wasn't burning:


The 'sacrilege' quote, incidentally, comes not from angry viewers (none are mentioned) but from former Blue Peter presenter Anthea Turner, who is wheeled out to say:

'The advent crown is part of the bricks and mortar of what makes Blue Peter so special. To burn it is sacrilege. It was a wonderful tradition and both children and adults loved making it. What are they trying to prove?'

Since they didn't burn it, it isn't 'sacrilege' and they aren't trying to 'prove' anything. It seems fairly obvious she hadn't seen the show and nor had another former presenter:

Konnie Huq, the show’s longest-serving presenter, said she had not seen the footage, but added: 'I am very fond of the advent crown – it is cult.'

One comment on the article sums it up perfectly:


(Hat-tip to Jim Hawkins)

Mail attacks BBC for 'voyeuristic' Wimbledon coverage

Last week, this blog pointed out that tabloid coverage of Wimbledon had been dominated by pictures taken up the skirts of the female competitors.

As if to prove the point, the Mail followed it with not one, but two more of these pervy, pointless articles:



(Not to be outdone, The Sun produced a slide show of the 'ten best tennis bottoms'.)

But today we find the hypocrites at the Mail attacking the BBC for, believe it or not, 'voyeurism' in their coverage of Wimbledon.

Words fail.

The Paul Revoir article is based on a few anonymous comments (left on an unnamed messageboard) but the Mail article is currently second story on their website so they're happy to make the point. Never mind that the article makes clear the BBC haven't received any actual complaints - so much for the claim the camerawork has 'sparked fury'.

The Mail happily prints little else but upskirt pictures of female tennis players in their Wimbledon coverage (they published another yesterday, of Tsvetana Pironkova). But when the BBC shows a couple of spectators kissing - in a public place, among hundreds of people, at an event that is televised - that is described as 'voyeuristic camerawork'.

Oh, and the Mail decides to helpfully post a picture of one of the couples in question - for the benefit of the millions of people who visit their website. So it's voyeurism for the BBC to show them, but fine for the Mail.

UPDATE: The Mail updated their article at 11:27am, adding:

Of the 150 viewers who expressed their displeasure on the BBC's message boards about various matches...

This is an outright lie. The discussion thread 'Voyeurism at Wimbledon' on the BBC's Points of View pages had a total of 150 comments at the time of their update. Several of the people complaining about the coverage had posted multiple comments - for example, in the first 60 comments posted, only six different people are complaining about the 'voyeurism' and they posted 22 messages between them. Moreover, there are a large number of comments from people who didn't have a problem with the shots of the crowd.

Therefore, to claim '150 viewers...expressed their displeasure' is totally wrong and having trawled the thread for the critical comments, they are very well aware of that.