No EU 'ban' on blowing up balloons

On Sunday, MailOnline reported:

The story ran in Monday's papers under headlines such as 'Brussels bans toys' (Mail), 'Now Euro killjoys ban children's party toys' (Express) and 'Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules' (Telegraph).

Have children been 'banned' from blowing up balloons by the EU, as all the papers claimed? No. The stories refer to the Toy Safety Directive and what the explanatory guidance to that actually says is:

For latex balloons there must be a warning that children under 8 years must be supervised and broken balloons should be discarded.

It's about an 'age suitable' warning on the packet. It's not about the EU 'banning' something.

How, exactly, do these papers think such a ban, if it did exist, would be enforced anyway?

In response, Antonia Mochan of the European Commission Representation in the United Kingdom said:

The EU rules can regulate how things are put on the market, but not how they are used in the home. So they recommend supervision for use of balloons etc that children could choke on, but don’t ban children from using them.

The official statement from the Representation's office says:

Several newspapers have claimed that “Brussels” has imposed new rules on the UK banning children from blowing up balloons or using party whistles. This is wholly untrue.

EU legislation on toy safety aims to protect young children from death and injury and reflects expert medical advice – and simple common sense.

Balloons and other toys placed in the mouth can and do cause death and injury.

The EU rules referred to date from 1988. They state that ballons made of latex must carry a warning to parents that children under eight years should be supervised. Stronger plastic ballons do not need to carry this warning.

They also state that all toys aimed at children under three should be large enough to prevent them being swallowed.

Despite this, the claims were repeated by former Express editor Peter Hill:

There are certain types of public official in this country who make it their life's work to think of things to ban.

They are only happy when making other people's lives a little less free and a little less rich.

Now they've teamed up with others of their ilk in obscure offices of the EU, whose latest fatuous decision is to ban children from blowing up balloons and playing penny whistles.

Can anyone recall a case of a child being killed doing either? It's interfering for interfering's sake.

There's a certain type of journalist who make it their life's work to report on things being banned when they aren't really. Since there is no such 'ban' in this case, it's Hill who is being fatuous.

And he asks if anyone can recall a case of a child being killed blowing up a balloon. The parents of Clarice Harron can - their daughter choked to death while blowing up a balloon in 2009. And in 2008, the Mail reported that a 5-year-old had died after choking on a burst balloon.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC):

Of all children's products, balloons are the leading cause of suffocation death, according to CPSC injury data. Since 1973, more than 110 children have died as a result of suffocation involving uninflated balloons or pieces of balloons. Most of the victims were under six years of age, but the CPSC does know of several older children who have suffocated on balloons. 

Indeed, the Child Safety Protection Act, effective in the US since 1 January 1995, states that balloons must carry the following warning:

WARNING

CHOKING HAZARD - Children under 8 yrs. can choke or suffocate on uninflated or broken balloons. Adult supervision required.

Keep uninflated balloons from children. Discard broken balloons at once.

So the warning outlined by the EU's Toy Safety Directive is much the same as the one that has been used in the US for 16 years.

It wasn't just the facts about balloons that the papers got wrong. The Mail's article states, at the start:

Many traditional filler toys are being banned because they do not conform to tough regulations imposed by Brussels.

Party blowers...are among the favourites deemed too dangerous.

But towards the end, that changes to:

Party blowers...are categorised as unsafe for under-14s under rules governing toys that children put in their mouths. EU officials claim bits of blower could come off and cause choking. They can no longer be sold unless they pass strict new tests.

So not actually banned either, the article eventually admits. Just subject to safety tests - as all toys that kids put in their mouth are - and given an 'age suitable' warning.

Is trying to make toys as safe as reasonably possible really such a strange thing to want to do? It seems unlikely that the papers would be so misleading, or take the same snide tone, if this didn't involve the EU.

(More from Full Fact)

Peter Hill praises the EU

When he was editor of the Daily Express, Peter Hill oversaw a drop in circulation from 851,199 to 623,603 copies per day in just over 7 years. His reign was marked by Diana conspiracy theories, countless libellous claims in articles about Madeleine McCann, and lots of nastiness about immigrants and Muslims.

It also ran many stories about the EU. On 8 January this year, the paper produced a Get Britain Out of the EU pull-out. Hill wrote the introduction, which stated the EU was a 'dictatorship':

the traditional rights and freedoms of the peoples of Europe have been systematically swept away with a ruthless efficiency that would have been the envy of Napoleon and Hitler.

Hill added:

I defy anyone to produce one single act or law of the EU and the European Court that has actually benefited Britain.

'Anyone'.

Well, since leaving the editor's chair, Hill has been writing a weekly column in the Express. Two days ago, he turned his attention to an EU plan to ensure bacon that includes more than 5% water is labelled as such (current UK legislation sets the limit at 10%). Even the Telegraph and Mail thought this was quite a good idea.

But did Hill think this plan was yet another hallmark of the 'EU dictatorship'? Not quite:

Just occasionally the EU gets it right and one subject on which it is consistently sound is food standards.

For years British food suppliers have hidden behind elaborate secrecy laws, enabling them to get away with pretty much any old rubbish...

Now the EU says that bacon producers will have to rename their product "bacon with added water" if it contains more than five per cent of water. Fair enough...

All this injecting of meat products with numerous chemicals and water couldn't possibly have happened in the good old days when our meat actually tasted of something.

It's nasty British factory farming methods that are responsible, among which pork and bacon are the worst. Long live EU food standards.

Reporting on Europe

Minority Thought has written an important post showing how frequently newspapers make mistakes when writing about the European Court of Human Rights. Repeatedly, decisions from the ECHR are referred to as emanating from the EU, despite the two being separate bodies.

As the European Commission's Representative in the UK told editors last year:

Newsdesks and subeditors are asked to note that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights should not be referred to as EU decisions, and the judgements should not be attributed to “EU judges”, or any similar language. The European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation to the European Union. The UK is a founding member of the Council of Europe, which was created in 1949 by the Treaty of London.

Meanwhile, last Saturday, the Express published its 24-page pull-out 'Get Britain Out of the EU' which 'explained':

why we must rescue our country from EU dictators.

Yes, 'dictators'.

It began with a statement from Express editor Peter Hill. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take him long (his second paragraph) to mention Hitler:

the traditional rights and freedoms of the peoples of Europe have been systematically swept away with a ruthless efficiency that would have been the envy of Napoleon and Hitler.

Hill said the Express 'speaks out' for the 'people of Britain' - a claim as laughable as its one about it being the 'World's Greatest Newspaper'. The Express declare over 150,000 people have signed their 'Get Us Out of the EU coupon'. Since their daily circulation was 623,689 in December 2010 (down 16,001 from November) that's not even a quarter of their own readership.

The pull-out ended with a 'Cross with Europe: Eurosceptics' Crossword'. Yes, really (click to enlarge):

Blink and you'll miss it

Remember the 'Muslim Plot to Kill Pope' front page of Saturday's Express?


Yesterday, it was announced that every one of the six men who had been arrested had been released without charge.

Did the Express put this news on the front page? Not quite. Here's page nine of today's paper:


Still can't see it? It's here:


So the Express falsely labels the six men 'Al-Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorists plotting to kill the Pope' on the front page on Saturday, but only mentions they have all been released without charge in one easy-to-miss sentence at the bottom of page nine on Monday.

The Express' owner (Richard Desmond) and editor (Peter Hill) should be ashamed.

(Huge thanks to Daniel Selwood for the pics)

Express' circulation falls again

The latest ABCs reveal another fall in the circulation of the (ahem) World's Greatest Newspaper.

The Express was shifting 665,731 copies per day in April, down 2,542 since March and an 8.26% fall year-on-year.

It's the biggest year-on-year decline of any of the national tabloids and represents a loss of 60,000 readers in one year.

It's not hard to see why.

Another fall in sales for the 'World's Greatest Newspaper'

Following the substantial payout of libel damages on Thursday, there was further bad news for the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' on Friday when the latest ABCs showed another fall in circulation for Richard Desmond's useless rag.

The Express' circulation was 668,273 in March - 4,678 down on February. That represented a 7.93% drop on March 2009 - the biggest year-on-year fall of all the daily tabloids.

It also means circulation is now 182,926 lower than when Peter Hill took over as editor in December 2003 - that a loss of just over one-fifth of readers in six years. Tut tut.

Still, Desmond won't be too upset - the Star has had another baffling rise in sales. Staggering, given that all it peddles is made-up celebrity gossip.

The Daily Star is the fourth best-selling 'newspaper' in the country.

How depressing is that?

Anatomy of a newspaper

The front of today's Express was notable for two reasons:


One was the return of Diana.

The other was a headline about British workers being told: 'no jobs unless you are Polish'.

Much the same headline, in fact, that appeared on the front page of yesterday's Mail on Sunday:


Notice how the Express puts the Mail on Sunday's headline in quote marks.

And it's not just the headline the Express have, err, borrowed. Natalie Fahy's article is much the same as well.

It comes complete with the obligatory Express phone poll. Today, it asks 'Should British jobs go to British workers?'

The result will almost certainly be around 98% saying yes. But assuming a British job is a job in Britain, that would mean Express readers don't want anyone who is not British working in this country.

They're an enlightened bunch.

Half the letters in today's paper are about Muslims or immigration. In a note from Barry Clay, Norwich, he complains about a Conservative MP comparing burkhas to motorcycle helmets because, he says:

bike fans do a lot for various charities and are mostly decent members of the community.

And Muslims don't and aren't?

Back to the Express' front page and that Diana story is essentially another airing for claims the blood samples proving Henri Paul was drunk weren't actually taken from his body. It's not quite clear why this old nonsense is worth the front page as the paper has done this story once or twice before. Well, dozens of times.

On page 2, the Express gives results of two previous polls. 97% think Britain has been betrayed over the Falklands, while 98% think burkhas should be banned in public.

This is on page three:


This story was posted on the Mail's website on Saturday night and was prominent in their Femail section for much of yesterday:


Also on the Express' page 3, some gossip about Tiger Woods:


This wasn't in the Mail, but does seem to have been 'borrowed' from TMZ, where it was posted on Saturday:


On page 4, news of Labour plans for the House of Lords:


Which may have sounded familiar to anyone who saw yesterday's Sunday Telegraph:


Page 5 has the continuation of the front page 'Polish workers' story, plus another article about failed asylum seekers. And this:

And on page 17 this:


Guess what? Both the drink driving and raffled egg stories may have sounded, ahem, familiar to anyone who saw yesterday's Sunday Times:


On page 6, the strike at BA:

Which was framed in much the same way as Sunday's News of the World version:


Page ten turns to politics, including how former GMTV political editor Gloria De Piero is standing for Labour at the election:


This obviously had nothing to do with a page seven spread in yesterday's Mail on Sunday on the same topic:


The next page of the Express has the tale of two Brits who kissed in Dubai:


Which was on page 42 on yesterday's Mail on Sunday:


On page 17, the inevitable Cheryl Cole story:


Ashley Cole thrown out within 20 minutes? You don't say:



Two pages later, the inevitable Jon Venables article:


Which started life on the front of yesterday's News of the World:


In fact, one of the only Sunday front page stories the Express haven't used today is this one:


It's not hard to work out why.

There are other stories the Express have included which they have also borrowed from other newspapers too. Such as:

• The death of Liam Nelson, which appeared on the Mail website on Saturday.
• A woman complaining about her bins, which was in The People.
• Drew Barrymore's views on botox, which appeared in an interview in yesterday's Mail on Sunday.
• Duncan Bannatyne talking about suicide on Desert Island Discs.
• A climate change controversy which was posted on the Telegraph's website on Saturday.
• An Audit Commission report on council chiefs which was also posted on the Telegraph's website on Saturday.

Essentially, almost every 'news' story in today's Express has appeared in other media outlets, mainly other British newspapers, at some point over the last few days.

Where's the journalism?

The latest ABCs show another fall in the Express' circulation - down 1,689 since January to 672,951 copies sold per day.

Is it any wonder? Leading with decade old claims about Diana, and then filling the bits between the many, many adverts with stories that have appeared in other newspapers.

We know the Express is starved of resources, but this is a dismal state of affairs - especially for something that laughably calls itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper'.

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?

The 'World's Greatest Newspaper' won't win a British Press Award again this year

The nominations for the British Press Awards have been announced.

Unsurprisingly, the Telegraph leads the field (with 19 nominations) after its coverage of MPs' expenses.

The Guardian (17 nominations), The Sunday Times (15), The Times (13), Daily Mail (12) and the Mail on Sunday (11) follow.

There's also a handful of nominations each for the Mirror, Independent, Sun and FT.

In fact, only two national daily newspapers failed to get a single nomination: the Daily Star and the Daily Express. Richard Desmond, who owns both, must be so proud.

The Sunday Express got one nod, for the story about Jacqui Smith putting her husband's porn film on her expenses. But that's as good as it gets.

Because the Express, Star and their Sunday versions didn't get a single nomination in 2009 either.

And it was the same story in 2008.

And, ahem, 2007.

So only one nomination for Richard Desmond's dreadful rags in four years.

And yet the Express continues to call itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' on its masthead every day. Its circulation is collapsing, it serves up a daily diet of hate and lies and the complete lack of any nominations in these awards means it becomes increasingly hard to understand how they are allowed to make this obviously bogus claim.

Elsewhere, it was pleasing to see the Express' Paul Thomas was left off the cartoon shortlist.

But best of all, the complete failure of any of the nasty columnists at the Mail to get a single mention. No Littlejohn. No Moir. No Platell. No Melanie Phillips. No Liz Jones. No Allison Pearson.

Wonderful.

Not quite so wonderful is the somewhat surprising nomination for the Mail's 'Science' Editor Michael Hanlon in the 'Specialist journalist' category. This is the man who once wrote:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

Does one?

Even worse is the inclusion of Kelvin MacKenzie on the Columnist shortlist. MacKenzie is so highly valued by the Sun - despite his lies about Hillsborough - that they don't put his columns on their website.

Here's a flavour of his work. On 11 February he wrote about the Muslim bus driver who had stopped his bus in order to pray. Last time the Sun wrote this story about a different driver it cost them £30,000. But to MacKenzie, the latest incident was evidence that them Muslims were taking over - solely because the driver had not been sacked. He wrote:

So why wasn't he fired on the spot? It seems there is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.

And when he says 'them' we can safely assume he's not talking about bus drivers.

No, he's talking about Muslims who, he seems to be admitting, aren't really meant to be reading the Sun. They're not one of 'us'. Such language if often used by right-wing tabloids and serves only to divide people, to build barriers, to cause tension.

It's hugely depressing to see newspapers talk of 'them and us' in this way. And it's equally depressing that such talk gets rewarded with award nominations.

Another 3,000 readers desert the Express

The latest ABCs show the Express' circulation has fallen once again.

The January figure of 674,640 was down 0.46% on December and down 8.6% year on year.

In circulation terms, that's a loss of 10,555 over the last two months.

And that brings the tally of total sales lost since Peter Hill became Editor to 176,559. Per day.

Clumsy.

The Express lies about milk jugs

The Express had two eye-catching 'political correctness gone mad' stories on its front page today:


Anton covered the taxi driver one (as reported by the Mail) yesterday.

So let's look at what the 'Euro meddlers' are up to now.

As it turns out, err, nothing.

Here's what the Express originally ran:


Yet clicking that link reveals the article has been removed. Why? Because the EU didn't 'spout off' about, or 'call to ban', anything, and there were no rulings by 'Euro meddlers'.

As the re-written article makes clear, it's solely about a team of researchers from the University of Valencia who:

found that up to a third of milk and dairy products served up in bars, restaurants and cafes breached EU health regulations and was not fit for human consumption.

Is that it? Well, the researchers did say milk jugs increased the risk of contamination but that's about it.

Indeed, the EU in the UK blogged about the story, saying there was 'absolutely no basis' for it, adding:

The Commission fully supports the advice of the UK’s Food Standards Agency: milk jugs that are clean and stored appropriately before and after filling are totally in line with EU legislation.

So the actual story is: one-third of the milk served in Spanish restaurants exceeds contamination limits, say academic researchers.

The 'World's Greatest Newspaper' turns that into: EU wants to ban the British milk jug.

It's another clear example of what Editor Peter Hill called the 'vastly improved...standards of writing' at the Express.

Express breaks the rules again

The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled against the Daily Express for the sixth time in five months.

The Richard Desmond/Peter Hill rag breached the rules, again, with this front page on 24 October 2009:


The problem? The 'free fireworks' were not 'for every reader' as the offer didn't apply in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, the tiny text written vertically down the right-hand side of the box said:

When you spend £15 at participating Sainsbury's stores

But only on page 31 did it make clear the £15 had to spent on fireworks.

In both instances, the ASA ruled the front page of the Express was misleading. Now there's a surprise.

The ruling?

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Brilliant. As a one-off offer from four months ago, it wasn't going to appear again anyway.

So it seems the ASA is about as firm and relevant as the PCC when it comes to upholding complaints.

Express loses even more readers

The latest newspaper circulation figures provide further grim reading for Peter Hill, Editor of the self-proclaimed 'World's Greatest Newspaper'.

The Daily Express recorded a 6.94% year-on-year - and 1.09% month-on-month - circulation fall.

It now shifts 677,750 copies per day, a decline of 7,445 from November to December.

More significantly, Express Editor Peter Hill has overseen a massive fall in circulation of 173,449 copies per day since he's been in charge.

Express owner Richard Desmond bought the paper when sales were at 985,253, so he's been responsible for shedding 307,503 readers.

Good.

Here's one thing the Express is great at: losing readers

The latest newspaper circulation figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations were released yesterday. Full coverage can be found here and here.

But it seems worth highlighting the numbers for the Express - the self-proclaimed 'World Greatest Newspaper'.

In November 2009 it was shifting only 685,195 copies per day.

Of all the tabloids it now has the smallest circulation - lower than The Sun, Mail, Mirror and Star. It's also fallen way behind the Telegraph.

Which, for the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' seems, well, odd.

Would it be at all possible to blame their useless, dishonest Editor Peter Hill, the man who wouldn't know a decent front page story if it kicked him up the arse?

This is a man who decided that following one of the most significant news events of his lifetime - the inauguration of Barack Obama - his newspaper would carry a wraparound car advert.

Hill took over as Editor of the Express in December 2003.

That month, the paper's circulation was 851,199 copies per day.

And now, it's 685,195.

That's a loss of 166,004 copies per day.

A fall of 19.5%.

In 2003 the Express' circulation was 22,374 higher per day than the Star. Now it's 138,281 behind.

Inevitably, every newspaper's circulation has decreased since 2003. But the Express has suffered the second biggest fall of all the national dailies, with only the Mirror's 33.6% decline ahead of it.

The rot is not just down to Hill. Express owner, liar and pornographer Richard Desmond acquired the paper in November 2000, when circulation was 985,253. While he's been in charge, his business plan of slashing costs and firing journalists has resulted in a circulation decline of 30.5%.

So it appears that Hill and Richard Desmond are only ones who think stuffing their rag full of adverts, TaxPayers' Alliance quotes, Diana conspiracy theories, nonsense health stories, and fact-free scaremongering about immigration and Muslims is what makes their newspaper the - don't laugh - 'greatest'.

From the 'world's greatest newspaper': a front page about tea

When it could be reporting on the Fort Hood shootings or a speech by the Prime Minister on Afghanistan or any other really important news story, the - ahem - 'vastly improved standards of writing' at the Express are put to use with a front page about tea being good for you:

Plus - a lot of cut-price junk.

It's almost beyond parody now.

Peter Hill actually believes the Express is the 'world's greatest newspaper'

Ciar Byrne has a two page article about the Express and its Editor Peter Hill in the latest Press Gazette. As a former media correspondent at the Guardian and Independent, Byrne has produced a very disappointing piece which doesn't challenge Hill on his coverage of Diana and Madeleine McCann or the horrendous, biased and very often fictional coverage of immigration, Muslims and other minorities.

She writes:

Hill does not wish to give a 'set-piece interview' at present, but he is happy to defend the Express and its management against their critics.

Which implies she was restricted in what she was allowed to ask. In which case, ignore him. If he can't answer questions about the stream of lies his paper puts out, the racist propaganda, the huge court payouts, the ludicrous conspiracy theories, the adverts-as-editorial for which the paper has been rebuked four times, the fact so much of his dreadful paper is now advertising and the fact he and his proprietor are liars, then why bother talking to him at all?

What he does say is rubbish such as:

I believe the standards of writing have vastly improved

and isn't challenged on it. Most of the time, the question about any Express story is not whether it contains a good standard of writing (it usually doesn't) but whether it's even true (it often isn't). Exercise is good for you, it's going to be warm for a few days and the puppy who wasn't stamped to death have all been on the front page in the last week or so. This is a vastly improved standard of writing and journalism?

Apparently so. Hill is also allowed to say about the Express:

It's the world's greatest newspaper. That's what it says on the front. It must be true.

Yeh, like those 90 consecutive McCann stories which were all completely accurate. Or the puppy and EU income tax fictions.

But here's the thing - how can the Express write 'THE WORLD'S GREATEST NEWSPAPER' in caps on the masthead every day? It must surely rank only slightly above the Star and Sport as the third worst newspaper in Britain, let alone the world. It's not the greatest on sales, or on awards (unless that is libel awards, paid out...), or by any other criteria.

The ASA say it is not advertising so it can't do anything. Is it even worth asking the PCC...?

Once again, positive immigration story totally ignored

In yesterday's Independent and Financial Times, there were a reports about Eastern European migrants taking jobs and benefits in Britain since EU expansion in 2004. The stories were based on some academic research from University College London, namely Professor Christian Dustmann.

And what did the research conclude?

Immigrants from the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the European Union in May 2004 are less likely to be claiming welfare benefits and less likely to be living in social housing than people born in the UK, according to a new paper from UCL. What is more, they have made a positive contribution to the UK fiscal system, paying more in taxes than they receive in direct and indirect public transfers (such as benefits, NHS healthcare and education).

Here are some of the key facts from their press release:

• A8 immigrants who arrived after EU enlargement in 2004, and who have at least one year of residence – and are therefore legally eligible to claim benefits – are about 60% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and to live in social housing.
  

• Comparing the net fiscal contribution of A8 immigrants with that of individuals born in the UK, in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, A8 immigrants made a positive contribution to public finance.

• In the latest fiscal year, 2008/09, A8 immigrants paid 37% more in direct or indirect taxes than was spent on public goods and services which they received. This is even more remarkablebecause the UK has been running a budget deficit over the last few years.

• In 2008/09, A8 immigrants represented 0.91% of the total UK population, but contributed 0.96% of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6% of total expenditures.

Prof. Dustmann is quoted saying:

“A8 immigrants are on average more educated than natives and figures show that they experience rapid wage growth during their stay in the UK. We should therefore expect their tax payments to increase considerably over the next few years.”

A quick search of each newspaper's website, and Google News, indicates that the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph, Times and Guardian have all ignored these findings. You would think the usual suspects would like a bit of academic research on immigration, rather than relying on half-assed, biased Migrationwatch bullshit.

But when the answer doesn't suit their agenda, they clearly don't have any interest in reporting the facts.

In Janaury 2007, Express editor Peter Hill gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amongst many extraordinary and unbelievable claims ('I constantly reinforce this message, that we must be truthful in what we say'; 'It is very wrong of people to suggest that we cannot be truthful in our headlines. We must be able to be truthful in our headlines') he said the following:

'I think all my journalists are well aware that I do like the newspaper to be fair, and certainly to be truthful; but we have to report what we see. Quite frankly, there is not an awful lot of positive news on this particular subject. I am afraid most of the news is of a very negative nature'.

So here's a positive immigration story. And he doesn't bother running it.

At the same hearing, Mail Managing Editor Robin Esser said:

The idea that they are running around looking for inflammatory things to say about asylum seekers is wrong.

Really? So why has the Mail ignored this UCL research to report on the 'Bloody Siege of Calais', One of Queen's guards is an illegal immigrant, and Three Ethiopian exchange students 'vanish' during trip to Houses of Parliament?

(The Queen's guard story is interesting for the language used. An unnamed military officer uses the phrase 'the potential damage an enemy could do there' as if an illegal immigrant is not only automatically 'an enemy' but also a definite security threat. This was in the same manner as the the Sun's Loo Goes There story about a stowaway on a bus that went to Sandhurst. That story said: 'Afghan illegal who got into Sandhurst could have been a Taliban suicide bomber bent on causing carnage'. Because - of course - all Afghan's are Taliban, and all illegal immigrants are dangerous potential suicide bombers. The Mail version of the Afghan Illegal Immigrant at Sandhurst story, incidentally, included a crucial line towards the end: 'They were unable to confirm the man's nationality.')

Anyway, the same that Hill and Esser were lying through their teeth, The Guardian's Alan Travis told the Committee:

Recent Mori research in this area showed that Daily Express readers think that 21% of the British population are immigrants. The Daily Mail readers say it is about 19%. Guardian readers say it is about 11%. We are all actually exaggerating. It is only 7%.

Yesterday's Independent also included an investigative feature which claimed that in the past 23 days, 21 foreign language students in Brighton had been targeted by criminals. Some of these crimes were thefts from their homes, but there have been several more violent attacks, including two Uzbeki teenagers (14 and 15) being told to 'Speak English' and being called 'Pakis' as the attackers tried to force their way into their house.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

Great news!

I can hardly contain my smiles on hearing that Richard Desmond has lost his libel case against Tom Bower.

This presumably means the jury disregarded his evidence, which may very well make him, officially, a liar.

As if we didn't know. Some of his evidence was clearly untrustworthy - such as the claims about him not using his awful rags to settle scores, when evidence about his long-running fights with the Mail is well known.

He also claimed - on the witness stand - he only read Bower's book on holiday in August 2007, when he had in fact instructed lawyers to take action in July.

The court also heard a tape of Desmond threatening Jafar Omid with the words: 'I am the worst fucking enemy you'll ever have'. He also said:

It's seventy-five grand, you know, and I think, fuck me, you know, we've done so much, you know, business together, you know. And we got, you know, a little, what's the word, situation over seventy-five grand.

This from a man whose newspapers, you know, complain about the language skills of others.

He denied he meddled with the editorial side of his papers - his friendship with Mohammed Al-Fayed clearly had nothing to with endless of pathetic Diana conspiracy stories appearing in the Express.

He has issued a statement, post-verdict, in which he has said:

I sued Mr Bower for defamation because he made inaccurate and damaging allegations about me...It was worth it to stand up in court and set the record straight.

Set the record straight? The jury clearly didn't believe what his version of 'the record' was, so what is he on about?

On top of all the libel payouts that the Express and Star have incurred recently, it's hard to believe that anyone bothers to buy either paper any more.

But the Express with its veneer of respectability (very thin, but the people who buy it do think it's a quality paper) it gives credibility to its incessant abuse of, and misleading articles about, minority groups.

I happen to have picked up a copy today and was amazed at how much advertising it had in it. A very rough count of quarter, half, or full page ads suggested that of the 80 pages, around 28 were adverts - that's 35%. (Compared with today's Times, for example, which had around 14 pages of ads out of 72, around 3 of which were for either the Times or Sunday Times, which is 19%).

It is a quite shockingly low rent piece of tat, with an insidious, racist agenda.

And its editor and owner are now both proven liars.

Shameless back-slap...and some thoughts

This very blog was mentioned in an article by Gaby Hinsliff, the political editor of the Observer, as an example of a 'new breed of blog' attacking the tabloids. She says: 'It's rough and ready, but it's an interesting new way of holding newspapers to account'.

Hopefully people do find it interesting. But there is something more to it than that. The question is - who holds the newspapers, and particularly the tabloid press, to account?

It should be the Press Complaints Commission, but this pitiful regulator has proved time and again that it is completely unable and unwilling to do it.

The PCC is a cosy club, where Editors sit on the various committees - so how can it be properly unbiased? It's also unbelievable that a regulator could have Daily Express editor Peter Hill sat on it for five years - despite pushing out endless untrue rubbish about Diana, Madeleine McCann, Muslims and asylum seekers.

But the real problem with the PCC is that the powers it has are so feeble. Editors will come up with all manner of excuses against fines, but if Ofcom can impose them on broadcasters that break the rules (as it did to the BBC over Sachsgate), why is it inappropriate for the newspapers?

The previous PCC Chair, Sir Christopher Meyer, said in 2005: "The best argument against fines or statutory regulation is the effectiveness and prominence of the negative adjudication". But in what way is a negative adjudication a punishment? Has a national editor lost his or her job over a negative adjudication? It means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.

This was proved in the PCC's adjudication on the Sunday Express' appalling Dunblane story. It read: 'Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it.'
The natural question that follows from their phrase 'so serious that no apology could remedy it' is: so what is the penalty for the Sunday Express? They print an apology - although only after an outcry and a 10,000-signature strong petition - and four months later have been told off by the PCC. Does the PCC really think that that remedies it?

Then there was the Alfie Patten case, where the Sun printed an entirely untrue front page splash, boosting sales and hits to its website and so gaining in all manner of financial ways, at the same time as exploiting a 13 year old child. It admitted much later that the story was untrue, but the PCC has never even censured the paper for it.

Besides, the rules for a complaint are so restrictive, with the PCC only bothering to consider complaints from third-parties in 'exceptional circumstances'. In other words, if you are not the person who is the subject of the article, there is next to nothing you can do. And in that way, they can exclude most complaints about asylum-seekers, for example, as they are groups and not named persons.

So if the PCC refuses to do what it should, who will? There is a reluctance for the newspapers to criticise each other. There might be the occasional item - such as when the Guardian looked at some of the misleading 'political correctness destroys Christmas' articles.

But other than in extreme cases - such as the News of the World phone tapping - newspapers very rarely criticise each other (and the Guardian's new revelations have mainly been ignored by the other printed press). This is likely because it would set off the type of tit-for-tat nonsense the Mail and Express have pointlessly engaged in at occasional intervals. And if one paper takes apart a rival's story, it knows it is likely to get it back when it makes its next transgression.

The broadcasters are different. Channel Four was targeted when the Big Brother racism row broke out, and of course the right-wing papers are all to happy to pile into the BBC at any opportunity - even when it's something as thin as the number of people sent to cover Glastonbury. But the papers seem like a no-go zone.

There are a few places where such things are highlighted. Private Eye's Street of Shame is likely to be the most well known, but coming out every two weeks it doesn't have the immediacy to react to a misleading or mischievous story. And it means that the story has had time to embed in the public consciousness.

This is the other problem with the PCC - it takes so long for it do anything. Take the recent Inayat Bunglwala apology from the Mail on Sunday which appeared four months after the original story, by which time the original story had spread like wildfire on the various anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sites and forums.

This happens for almost any immigration or Islam story, and this blog has highlighted how two recent Mail articles and a Littlejohn column (on Gypsy access to NHS services, the number of non-white children in London, and on foreign workers) were used and reproduced - with slight changes to the words, but in almost the exact same structure - as BNP press releases.

Blogs such as this one generally do it on the day the story appears. It's not just about doing what a misrepresented member of the public might want to highlight. It's about how certain papers have an agenda and will twist stories to fit it. They will print, without question, press releases from Migrationwatch, and yet almost never bother getting quotes from the Refugee Council.

In explaining why the BNP now has two MEPs, Max Hastings produced an article full of anti-immigrant scares and BNP talking points, and not once mentioned the positive contribution made by immigrants. He falsely claimed that Migrationwatch figures had never been challenged, but blogs have repeatedly proved their figures to be highly questionable. But because the organisation feeds them an endless supply of refugee-bashing stories, and the Mail and Express engage in 'churnalism' more than editors Paul Dacre and Peter Hill will admit, neither paper bothers to do the journalism that is required.

Does any of this matter? Well, yes. When certain tabloids fill their pages with exaggerated, inflammatory and often just plain wrong stories attacking minorities, they seep into the public consciousness. They get repeated on far-right websites and become accepted as true.

A Red Cross survey for Refugee Week proved that '95% of the British public do not know how many people apply for asylum in the UK each year, with the vast majority hugely overestimating numbers'. The first question - why did none of the tabloids bother reporting on this survey? The second - where would 95% of the public get such a wrong idea from?

My impression - and it's certainly true of this one - is that all the blogs highlighting tabloid nonsense are written by people in their spare time, which may explain why they may appear 'rough and ready'. But in doing a job that neither the PCC or other media seem keen to do, their contributions are definitely needed.

Express pays damages over false story (cont.)

Kate Beckinsale has been awarded £20,000 in damages by the Express (surprise!) over claims she missed out on the lead role in an upcoming remake of Barbarella.

The paper claimed she was 'facing heartbreak' after being overlooked for her 'dream role'. Her lawyer said:

As the defendant now accepts, the allegations are entirely false. The claimant [Beckinsale] was never in discussions about this film role and there was never a possibility she would be part of this project.

The Express' very busy lawyer added his client's 'sincere apology' (sincere? Hill and Desmond?) and was 'happy to pay damages and Beckinsale's legal fees'. He added:

"The defendant acknowledges that the false allegations should never have been published."

Add that to this and these (not to mention this) and you have quite a list of major complaints and court cases involving Richard Desmond's dreadful papers.

Oh and just another reminder of Peter Hill's comments to the Commons Select Committee that 'in his 10-and-a-half years as editor there had been "few complaints against me" and "no major law suits."'

Peter Hill = liar.