'Absolutely wrong'

On 25 November, the Sunday Mirror's Celebs magazine had singer Kelly Clarkson on the cover:

Clarkson responded to the quote, and other aspects of the story, on her website:

Um ....wow, so a UK Magazine called the Mirror, Sunday Celebs edition, just put out an article on me and just to clear up the absolutely wrong so called quotes from me, I have never had anorexia nor did I ever say "no one should be as famous as me". I said in the interview, when asked about fame, that I have no desire to be as famous as Britney or Madonna. I said that kind of fame was too much for any person and that I have experienced a portion of what they deal with and that I didn't handle that well and I'm happy where I'm at in my career. Side note, I love when people take what you say and twist it to make you sound obnoxious and arrogant ....nice job Mirror.

'Breakthrough'

The front page of the Sunday Mirror claimed it had an 'exclusive' about a 'breakthrough' in the search for the body of Keith Bennett:

'Moors murders spade clue', it promises. Simon Wright's article states:

This spade could unlock the mystery of where Moors murder victim Keith Bennett is buried.

But skip to the end of the 1,500-word article and it says this:

Tonight, a spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said in a statement: “We are aware of the claims and are satisfied they would be of no assistance in finding Keith Bennett’s body.”

So in what way is this a 'breakthrough'?

The Sunday Mirror is not entirely transparent about who discovered the spade. It says it was found by 'justice campaigners' and 'campaigners searching for the body of Moors murder victim Keith Bennett'.

But they are, in fact, members of 'Worsley Paranormal Group' - according to their website:

the group is one of the North West's most respected paranormal investigators

An hour after this story was posted on the Mirror's website, a version appeared on MailOnline. It also had a hopeful headline:

It also includes quotes that contradict the headline, this time from someone who had been examining the spade:

Steve Kershaw, senior lecturer in forensic analytical science at Manchester Metropolitan University...said he has been unable to trace its history.

He said: 'It is very, very corroded. The metal in it appears to be a reasonable steel that pre-dates the start of recycling.

'There was some vegetation attached to it and was found in an area of peat.

'The handle had been broken off, but even if we had lots more time, and even if we had established that it was a spade from the 60s or pre-dated the 60s, we would not have necessarily established if it was anything to do with Ian Brady.

'The only way we would have been able to tell is if it had DNA on it and that is harder to tell with the handle gone, with it being so corroded.

'Although some vegetation has survived, there is very little chance of DNA having survived.'

He said the spade has now been returned to its finders.

Today, the Mail has another article on this subject - this time, reporting comments from Keith's brother Alan:

'This is complete nonsense as is the Worsley Paranormal Group’s theories and activities.

'They are to be found all over the internet chasing anybody who they think will listen to them. They also post videos claiming to have picked up Keith on a "ghost box" machine, all of which I find totally disgusting.

'They know my thoughts on their "findings" and when they realised, finally, that I could not take them seriously, they got very angry to the point of being abusive.

'It seems now they, just like the other "oddballs" in the news lately, have gone to a newspaper. They have seen their moment to jump on the bandwagon with all the recent publicity about the case.

'This is just another of several spades that have been found on the moor. It is not near any real area of interest to anybody but themselves. I have spoken about these people with the police and we all agreed their "evidence" was of the sort that did not warrant further consideration - to put it mildly.'

He added: 'I am and will continue to be offended and angered by these people.'

Sorry we said you punched a taxi

An apology to Wayne Rooney which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Mirror (spotted by Regret the Error):

On October 16 we published an article reporting claims that Wayne Rooney had damaged a taxi after it arrived late to collect him and his party for a concert.

We're happy to make clear that Wayne did not punch the vehicle which was not late and we offer him our apologies.

'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.

'Witch hunts and character assassination'

Christopher Jefferies, the man arrested but released without charge in the Jo Yeates murder case, has accepted 'substantial' libel damages and apologies from eight newspapers.

The papers involved were the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Express, Star, Daily Record and Scotsman.

Speaking outside court, Jefferies' lawyer Louis Charalambous said:

"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch hunts and character assassination conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media.

"Many of the stories published in these newspapers are designed to 'monster' the individual, in flagrant disregard for his reputation, privacy and rights to a fair trial.

"These newspapers have now apologised to him and paid substantial damages but they do so knowing that once the conditional fee agreement rules are changed next year victims of tabloid witch hunts will no longer have the same access to justice."

It is worth remembering the coverage, which included him being labelled a 'Peeping Tom' and 'Professor Strange' and he was accused of being 'obsessed with death' and 'creepy'.

Another lawyer, Bambos Tsiattalou, who had advised Jefferies, stated:

"We warned the media by letter, immediately following Mr Jefferies' arrest, in the strongest possible terms to desist from publishing stories which were damaging or defamatory.

"We were dismayed that our warnings went unheeded and are pleased that the newspapers, in settling Mr Jefferies' claims, have acknowledged the extent of the damage to his reputation."

A few hours after those damages were announced, the High Court ruled the Mirror and Sun were in contempt over some of their articles on Jefferies which 'created substantial risks to the course of justice'.

The judgment (pdf) highlights the articles in question. First, the Mirror on 31 December:

On the front page of the Daily Mirror, in the context of what were described as the “Jo files” the headline alleged that “Jo suspect is peeping Tom”. It was asserted on the front page in large print:

“Arrest landlord spied on flat couple”, followed immediately below by:

“Friend in jail for paedophile crimes”, followed immediately below by:

“Cops now probe 36 –years old murder.”

In short, while positively asserting that Mr Jefferies was a voyeur, without directly asserting that he was involved in paedophile crimes or a long unresolved murder, the impression conveyed to an objective reader was that he was somehow linked with not one but two awful, additional crimes.

Then the Mirror the following day:

The front page banner headline asks “Was killer waiting in Jo’s flat?”. The story on the front page begins:

“Joanna Yeates’s killer may have been waiting for her inside her basement flat as she returned home. Detectives yesterday sent towels and bedding for DNA tests after finding no signs of a break-in”.

We observe that if entry was not forced, then whoever went into the flat had access to it. The only person with

And in the Sun, also on 1 January:

On the lower half of the front page of The Sun the headline reads “Obsessed by death” and it is alleged that Mr Jefferies “scared kids” by a macabre fascination. He wanted to show death to his pupils and was obsessed with it...

More significant, was the headline across pages 4 and 5 “Murdered Jo: suspect “followed me” says woman”. And this was followed by a lengthy article under the headline “What do you think I am…a pervert?” describing the “landlord’s outburst at blonde”. This was an “exclusive” story about a “former acquaintance” of Mr Jefferies who felt that she was being followed by him. The thrust of the story was that Mr Jefferies liked blondes – and Miss Yeates, too, was blonde - and she felt as though she was being followed by someone described as “quite a dominant personality”, a “control freak” who made her feel “very uncomfortable”.

In the view of the newspapers there was no risk to the course of justice because people would have forgotten what they had said about Jefferies:

The main focus of the written submissions by the defendants was that the articles did not create substantial risk of serious prejudice to any trial of Mr Jefferies which might take place in the future, probably some 9 months or so after publication.

The ruling states:

The material in the two publications of the Daily Mirror is extreme...In our judgment the two publications in the Daily Mirror created substantial risks to the course of justice. They constituted contempt under the strict liability rule.

It adds that although the effect of the Sun's articles:

is not as grave as that of two series of articles contained in the Mirror, the vilification of Mr Jefferies created a very serious risk that the preparation of his defence would be damaged. At the time when this edition of the Sun was published it created substantial risks to the course of justice. It therefore constituted a contempt under the strict liability rule.

Reflecting that judgment, the Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000, although at time of writing the Mirror's publishers have said they will appeal.

Given that seven of the eight papers in the Jefferies case also paid libel damages to Robert Murat almost exactly three years ago, it's clear that certain newspapers have learnt nothing from this type of coverage.

Instead, when Jefferies was arrested, there was a disgraceful feeding frenzy in which each tabloid tried to out-do its rivals with even more extreme, prurient detail.

How did this happen? As Roy Greenslade asks: how did the lawyers at these papers let these stories be published in the first place?

Will the newspapers publish apologies to Jefferies with the prominence that he deserves? Will any of the editors involved take the time to explain themselves?

And will these papers act differently next time someone is arrested in a high-profile case?

Men and women, by 'Mitchy'

The Sunday Mirror's front page story about Wayne Rooney's private life has set off the usual tawdry feeding frenzy.

For example, this Mail article - which is, incredibly, credited to four journalists - contains only 1095 words (mostly anonymous quotes) in between nineteen photos of one of the women involved.

The Sun were also relying on anonymous quotes, including one spotted by Anton where someone described as a 'pal' said of the same woman:

She's not a very nice person.

Some pal.

However, a now-removed comment left on the Sunday Mirror's website was even more eye-catching:

Sorry we called you a stalker (cont.)

In December, Barry George won substantial libel damages from Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers because the Sun and News of the World continued to imply he was a murderer and stalker even after he was cleared of killing Jill Dando.

Today, George won an apology and libel damages from the Mirror Group, after all three of its papers - the Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People - wrote, in 2008, that:

Mr George had threatened to pester and harass Ms [Cheryl] Cole and her colleagues so he could meet the Girls Aloud singer and X Factor judge.

It was also claimed Mr George had downloaded pictures of Sky presenter Ms Burley, and said that he loved her and she loved him.

And so:

MGN agreed to pay substantial damages and Mr George's costs, and Emily Barber, solicitor for the newspaper group, said that it apologised for any hurt and distress caused to him.

In the Mirror's own words:

In an article we published on our website in October 2008, we alleged that Barry George had been paying an excessive and worrying interest in the Sky TV presenter Kay Burley. We accept that those allegations were false. We take this opportunity to apologise to Mr George for any upset and hurt he felt.

What both these payouts show is that all these newspapers believed they knew better than the courts. Despite his acquittal, they were determind to smear George and continued to imply he was guilty after all.

Apologies round-up

Associated Newspapers have agreed to pay Michael Parkinson £25,000 in libel damages (plus costs) over a Daily Mail article ironically titled 'Who's Telling Parkies?'

From MediaGuardian:

The article made a series of allegations that Parkinson had acted in a 'grossly insensitive' way toward his uncle, Bernard Parkinson, and that he had intentionally lied about having had a harmonious family upbringing in his autobiography.

'The article was both distressing and as inaccurate as it was damaging,' said Parkinson in a statement.

Some of his other comments are worth repeating:

'Where defamatory allegations have been published about me, I have always until now turned a blind eye. However, I decided that the Daily Mail had crossed a line by a long way'.

The Mail? Surely not? And:

Parkinson added that he considered it standard practice and a 'matter of common decency' for a newspaper to apologise publicly and promptly when a mistake is made.

'In this case, it should not have taken nine months nor been so difficult for the editor to apologise promptly,' he said.

'Moreover I believe that the persistent delaying tactics of the Daily Mail were both unattractive and unworthy of a national newspaper.

What's staggering is that someone who's been around as long as Parky seems to have rather high expectations of the Mail and its Editor Paul Dacre.

The Mail took over a month to respond to a complaint made to the PCC about Littlejohn's false claims that Eastern Europeans commit most of the robberies in Britain. They ignored an email from an American journalist accusing them of plagiarism.

Persistent delaying tactics when facing complaints seems to be the Mail's default position.

Meanwhile the Sunday Mirror has apologised for using a photo of the wrong woman:

Last week, to accompany an article about Ashley Cole cheating on Cheryl with Vicki Gough, 30, we mistakenly pictured Vicky Gough, 19 (above). We wish to make clear that the Ms Gough we pictured has no connection whatsoever with Ashley Cole and offer our sincere apologies for any distress and embarrassment caused to her.

Over at The Sun, there's an apology for Dr Mohammed Asha:

An article on 10 August 2009 "Terror case doc works in casualty" reported that, following his court acquittal on terrorist charges, Dr Asha was working for the NHS.

Some readers may have understood the article to mean that Dr Asha is a terrorist suspect and a threat to national security.

This was not our intention and it is untrue.

We wish to make clear that The Sun stands by the jury's verdict and does not suggest he is involved in terrorism.

We apologise to Dr Asha and his family for any embarrassment and distress caused.

Not our fault, guv, it's our readers taking our headlines literally. It's an apology, but the wording really is appalling. As Septicisle accurately pointed out at The Sun - Tabloid Lies:

You really have to love the 'some readers' formulation; it's you morons that misunderstood it, not us for being about as subtle as a brick and implying that this completely innocent man must still be a threat just because he was tried for terrorism offences. Apologising while not apologising really takes some doing.

Also from The Sun, an apology for accusing a footballer of being involved in a 'sex scandal':

A report on December 12 stated that Colin Kazim-Richards had been transfer-listed by Fenerbahce due to his involvement in a sex scandal.

We now accept that this agency report was untrue and that he was not involved in any such scandal.

The player has since happily left the club by agreement for football reasons.

We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Mr Kazim-Richards for any embarrassment caused.

So that one wasn't their fault either - it was agency copy to blame this time.

Payouts latest

The Sunday Mirror has agreed to pay £30,000 in libel damages to Ed Buxton after running an article on 12 July that he had 'viciously attacked' Sophie Anderton The MediaGuardian explains:

Mirror Group Newspaper's legal representative Lindsay Hodgkinson, a solicitor at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, apologised on behalf of the newspaper group.

"The defendant [the Sunday Mirror] is here today through me to offer its sincere apologies to the claimant for the damage, as well as the distress and embarrassment, caused to him by the publication of the article. The defendant acknowledges that this false and defamatory allegation should never have been published."