Mail on Sunday corrects minaret claim

A correction from the Mail on Sunday:

An earlier version of this article showed a picture of a mosque with dome and minaret and suggested that such a building might be added to the skyline of Chipping Norton. We would like to make clear that the proposal is for a conversion of an existing shop and there will be no addition to the skyline of Chipping Norton.

Leveson on the 'discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced' reporting of minority groups

One interesting but overlooked section of the Leveson Report has been about the representation of minorities.

On the treatment of the trans community, for example, Leveson writes (p.668):

On the basis of the evidence seen by the Inquiry, it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect; and in instances where individuals are identified either expressly or by necessary implication perpetrate breaches of clause 12 of the Code. Parts of the tabloid press continue to seek to ‘out’ transgender people notwithstanding its prohibition in the Editors’ Code. And parts of the tabloid press continue to refer to the transgender community in derogatory terms, holding transgender people up for ridicule, or denying the legitimacy of their condition. Although the Inquiry heard evidence that parts of the tabloid press had “raised [its] game in terms of transgender reporting”,[393] the examples provided by TMW of stories from the last year demonstrate that the game needs to be raised significantly higher.

The section on ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants is also critical of parts of the press. Leveson states (p.668) that:

the identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.

For example:

the following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.  

The report outlines several other examples (there are lots to choose from) such as 'Muslim Only Public Loos', 'Terror Target Sugar', 'Brave Heroes Hounded Out' and 'Muslim Plot To Kill Pope'. 

Leveson concludes (p.671):

The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.

Moving on to reporting of immigration issues, Leveson begins by saying (p.671):

The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.

He then outlines some examples of poor journalism, including 'Swan Bake', 'Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys' and 'Failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation for a decade told he can stay...because he goes to the GYM' all of which were untrue.

Leveson found (p.673):

evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story. The evidence given by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain suggested a similar approach to gypsy and traveller issues.

And (p.672): 

It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.

His conclusion is damning (p.673):

Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning. The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.

 

Sunday Express pays damages over 'fanatics in school' article

Sunday Express, 12 June 2011:

The Guardian, 31 July 2012:

The Sunday Express has apologised and paid damages to a London school it falsely claimed taught an extreme form of Islam.

Northern & Shell's Sunday title published a front-page story on 12 June 2011, headlined "Spies in schools to hunt fanatics", in which it wrongly stated that the King Fahad Academy in Acton, west London, taught extreme Islam.

The article, which was also published on the paper's website, falsely suggested that the academy school had been infiltrated by Islamic fanatics...

The Sunday Express apologised for the article and said it regretted the distress caused. The paper agreed to pay an undisclosed amount in damages and legal costs to the school.

MailOnline and Egypt's 'sex after death law'

On 13 July, the PCC published details of a complaint against the Mail that seems to have actually been resolved at the end of May.

MailOnline added this to the end of an article:

This article has been edited to deal with complaints that our original was inaccurate. We apologise to readers who were offended by our first story.

What was the 'first story'?

Outrage as Egypt plans 'farewell intercourse law' so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives up to six hours after their death.

That article claimed:

Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives - for up to six hours after their death. The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

Except it wasn't. The headline of the MailOnline article now reads:

Egypt's 'plans for farewell intercourse law so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives' branded completely false

'Branded' false. Not is false. And the story says:

The controversial new 'farewell intercourse' law was claimed, in Arab media, to be part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

And indeed the claims did originate 'in Arab media'. But the MailOnline (and others) repeated them without much, if any, fact-checking. There's background on the story here and here.

But, as Dan Murphy pointed out in the Christian Science Monitor:

The problem is that there was never any such proposal, at any stage of consideration, in the Egyptian parliament. Ms. [Mervat el-Tallawy, the head of Egypt's National Council for Women] issued a statement today that says she's concerned about legislation that may harm the position of women in Egypt, but that there was never any "sex after death law" under consideration, let alone one she complained about. Arabiya followed up as well, quoting Parliament Secretary Sami Mahran as saying no such piece of legislation ever existed.

So MailOnline has now apologised. Not for getting it wrong, but 'to readers who were offended by our first story'.

'No further action'

MailOnline reports:

Bullet point five says:

Arrests made after two held over alleged plot to attack the London Olympic canoeing event

The article does not elaborate on this, but a MailOnline article from 29 June does:

It explains:

Two Muslim converts have been arrested on suspicion of plotting an attack on the London Olympic canoeing venue after police spotted them on a dinghy nearby.

An 18-year-old and a 32-year-old were detained after dawn raids were carried out at separate addresses in east London by officers acting on a tip-off.

Sources said the arrests were made after the men were seen acting suspiciously close to the venue in Waltham Abbey, Essex, on Monday.

These arrests were reported elsewhere, including the Telegraph which seemed to present this 'Olympic terror plot' as fact in its main headline:

Yet neither the Mail nor the Telegraph appear to have reported any subsequent developments in the case - in particular, the fact that both men were released without charge the following day.

As Associated Press explained:

Scotland Yard says an 18-year-old and a 32-year-old arrested at separate addresses in east London last week have been freed "with no further action."

So not only does it appear that the Mail and Telegraph have failed to inform their readers of this, but MailOnline is today mentioning the arrests again.

(More on this from Islamophobia Watch)

(A report on Islam and Muslims and the British Media (pdf), by Unitas, was submitted to the Leveson Inquiry this week)

Papers apologise, pay damages for terrorism and gangster claims

MailOnline, 4 May 2012:

Algerian man wrongly accused of providing French hideout for British Al Qaeda terrorists

Metro and other publishers yesterday told the High Court they had agreed to pay substantial damages to an Algerian man for wrongly reporting that he offered a safe house in France to British Al Qaeda terrorists.

Associated Newspapers, the publisher of MailOnline and Metro, The Telegraph Media Group, MGN, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, and the publisher of the Daily Express apologised in the High Court to Farid Boukemiche, 40.

Some reports said he was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation and for financing terrorism.

Others alleged he was a ‘gangster’ accused of carrying out robberies or had admitted to robbery.

The High Court heard the articles had been withdrawn from the newspapers’ websites, that they had accepted that the allegations were untrue and they had apologised to Mr Boukemiche.

Daily Mirror, 4 May 2012:

Farid Boukemiche

In court yesterday we and other newspapers apologised to Farid Boukemiche. In an article provided to us by a freelance journalist which was published on 4 January 2011 we wrongly said that he was on trial in France accused of funding terrorism. Although he had been arrested in France in 2005 he was not on trial as all charges against him had been withdrawn in 2008. We further accepted that he was not a gangster nor that he had offered a "safe house" in France to British terrorists. We have paid him damages and costs.

Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2012:

Farid Boukemiche

Mr Farid Boukemiche yesterday accepted an apology and damages over reports in The Telegraph (Jan 3 and 4 2011) and other newspapers.

The court was told that reporting was based on information supplied by a freelance journalist and incorrectly suggested that Mr Boukemiche was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation; for financing terrorism; offering a “safe house” in France to British terrorists from Al Qaeda networks and that he was a “gangster” who was accused of carrying out robberies (including one allegation of armed robbery) and/or had admitted to robbery.

Mr Jonathen Scherbel-Ball, representing the newspapers, told the court that the publications acknowledged that the information was untrue and apologised for the distress caused. 

Metro, 4 May 2012:

Correction - Farid Boukemiche

Metro and other publishers yesterday told the High Court they had agreed to pay substantial damages to an Algerian man for wrongly reporting that he offered a safe house in France to British Al Qaeda terrorists.

Associated Newspapers, the publisher of MailOnline and Metro, The Telegraph Media Group, MGN, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, and the publisher of the Daily Express apologised in the High Court to Farid Boukemiche, 40.

Some reports said he was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation and for financing terrorism.

Others alleged he was a ‘gangster’ accused of carrying out robberies or had admitted to robbery.

The court heard the articles had been withdrawn from the newspapers’ websites, that they had accepted that the allegations were untrue and they had apologised to Mr Boukemiche.

MailOnline changes inaccurate headline about Muslims and honour violence

On 19 March, MailOnline ran an article under the headline: ‘More than two thirds of young British Muslims believe 'honour' violence is acceptable, survey reveals’:

The article, by Leon Watson, began with much the same claim:

Most young British Muslims support violence against women who 'dishonour' their families, a Panorama investigation will claim today.

In fact, Panorama claimed no such thing. MailOnline was completely wrong.

What the poll of attitudes of 500 young Asians living in Britain, conducted by ComRes, actually revealed was that:

two-thirds of young Asians (69%) living in Great Britain agree families should live according to the concept of ‘honour’ - or ‘izzat’.

So the two-thirds figure quoted so prominently by MailOnline was not about Muslims only, and absolutely was not about violence being acceptable.

The poll did ask respondents if they agreed with the statement:

In certain circumstances, it can be right to physically punish a female member of the family if she brings dishonour to her family or community.

Contrary to the alarming claim in the MailOnline headline, only 6% of all respondents agreed with this statement. Moreover, the percentage of Christians who agreed with this statement was 8% (albeit based on a small number of respondents), compared with 6% of Asian Muslims.

Clive Field, of British Religion in Numbers, notes, however:

three times this number (i.e. 18%) in the entire sample selected one or more of five ‘reasonable justifications’ for physical punishment of female members of the family. The figure was highest among Asian Christians (23%), followed by Muslims (20%), Sikhs (14%), and Hindus (13%).

It's not clear why there is this difference between the 6% and 18% figures. The MailOnline article contains no mention of the lower figure nor of the figures for Asian Christians.

But they have changed the headline so it now says:

That came too late, however, to stop their original headline being repeated on countless anti-Islam forums and blogs. 

The day after MailOnline wrongly claimed 'two thirds of young British Muslims believe 'honour' violence is acceptable' it won Newspaper Website of the Year at the Press Awards.

(See also David L Rattigan, iEngage and Islamophobia Watch)

A cucumber ban?

A few days ago, the Mail reported:

The article 'by' Daily Mail Reporter begins:

An Islamic cleric living in Europe has said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any 'sexual thoughts'.

The unnamed sheikh was quoted by el-Sawsana news saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male relative, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

The cleric said that these fruits and vegetables 'resemble the male penis' and could arouse women or 'make them think of sex,' in a story reported on Egyptian news website Bikya Masr.

And here's how the original article, published on 6 December by Bikyamasr.com, begins:

An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Sawsana news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

Very similar, isn't it? Eventhough Daily Mail Reporter has acknowledged Bikyamasr.com, the article is a shameless cut-and-paste job.

Except for one key sentence, which appears in the original but has been left out of the Mail's article. It says:

Bikyamasr.com cannot independently verify the accuracy of the news item at time of writing.

Why would the Mail leave that out? Instead, they run a story that cannot be verified about an unnamed person in an unnamed country without expressing any apparent doubt about its accuracy.

Moreover, the Mail has also failed to update its readers on a follow-up post written by Joseph Mayton, the Editor of Bikyamasr.com, on 11 December:

As Editor of Bikyamasr.com, I am disappointed that I did not catch and hold this piece. The “Islamic cleric bans women from touching cucumbers, bananas for sexual resemblance,” article should not have run when it did. Arguably, it should not have been run at all. We should not have published about an “unnamed sheikh” in an unnamed European country unless we were able to garner more information on the issue, both on the sheikh himself and the news website the information was gathered from, independently.

We realize that as a growing news organization with a growing reputation and readership, we have an increased responsibility to not only verify our own material at the highest levels, but further investigate the quotes and articles of other news organizations before referencing their work.

This is our error. We apologize for the poor judgment on the matter. It is inexcusable. While the exact quote reported by Assawsana.com may well have been exactly what it was reported to be by that website, without a name and location behind this person and comment, it is difficult to find the information credible.

We recognize our pitfalls and their repercussions. The fact that this story was quoted by a large number of news organizations across the globe shows that our error in judgment can have serious, detrimental effects. For this, we would like to apologize to our readers for the inadequate editorial judgment I, as Editor and Founder, made in this instance.

He adds:

We will continue to push for more information on this story, from Assawsana.com and other sources, in order to interrogate the accuracy of their original article. If we cannot uncover more information, then we take it as our duty to make this clear and do everything in our power to spread that revelation to those who have sourced and quoted us this past week.

But will the Mail be listening?

Mail exaggerates 'church fury' over McDonald's

Here's a classic Mail headline:

Christmas. Muslim. Church fury.

The article begins:

Church leaders have hit out at a branch of McDonald's which is to open on Christmas Day.

Which 'church leaders' are in a 'church fury' according to the article? 

Parish Rvd Wayne Stillwell said the decision to open the branch showed 'the continuing decline of Christendom in this country' and his reaction was 'one of great sadness'.

So he's 'sad' rather than in a 'fury'. Who else?

Well, the only other 'church' leader quoted in the story is the Dean of Derby, who says:

"Families and friends should come together at Christmas, and if they want to do that in McDonald’s then who is the Church to object?"

So one 'church leader' is a bit sad about McDonald's opening on Christmas Day, a rather more senior church leader says he has no objection. The Mail spins that as 'church fury' by 'church leaders'.

At the end of the article, a McDonald's spokesman reveals:

"We expect there to be about 60 stores in the UK that remain open this year."

That begs the question: why has the Mail decided to highlight this one store where a 'Muslim manager' has been 'drafted in'?

The Sun's editorial(s) on Norway

In the aftermath of the tragic events in Norway on Friday, several media outlets began to speculate as to who was responsible and, predictably, fingers were pointed at Muslims.

The front page of Saturday's Financial Times referred to 'Islamist extremism fears', while the Sun mentioned a 'homegrown al-Qaeda convert' and a 'homegrown Islamic convert' in its coverage:

(Every British national newspaper put this atrocity on the front page on Saturday except the Mail and the Express. What stories did they consider more important? The Mail went with '150 human hybrids grown in UK labs', while the Express led on 'Cleared: Man who killed burglar'. They also included a story on their front pages about the exhibiting of the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress at Buckingham Palace.)

But if you visit the Sun's website, it will appear that yesterday's editorial about events in Norway read:

Norway's pain

Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.

Terrorism brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.

The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.

How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.

Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.

The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.

But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.

The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.

Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.

Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.

Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.

Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.

Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.

We share their pain. We salute their courage.

But for readers of the print version of the newspaper, the editorial looked quite different. The sections in bold are the words removed from the current online version:

Stand strong with Norway

Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.

Terrorism, the scourge of the West, brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.

The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.

How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.

Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.

Why Norway? The answer is simple.

Because it is brave. It is a loyal member of NATO and plays its part in Afghanistan and Libya.

It has courageously stood up to Muslim fanatics trying to stir up hatred in Norway, where Islam is the second largest religion.

Recently it refused a grant to an Islamic leader demanding that those who did not observe Ramadan should be decapitated.

By daring to oppose terrorism, Norway has become a victim of it.

Attack

The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.

We do not know if yesterday was the work of al-Qaeda, which has threatened Norway before, or Libyan madman Gaddafi, who has vowed revenge on NATO. Last night one extremist Islamic group had already claimed responsibility.

The lesson for us are clear.

Osama Bin Laden may be dead. But the tentacles of al-Qaeda, and groups linked to it, spread deep into the heart of Western nations.

That is why our security cannot be relaxed, especially with the London Olympics only a year away.

The Government must keep its promise to change the law so our judges can no longer free terror suspects on human rights grounds.

Muslim hate preachers must be arrested, as the law allows. We need the decent Muslim majority to help stop their impressionable young men being recruited as bombers.

We must find every penny our security services need.

We must ask ourselves whether – like Norway – we offer too cushy a life to bogus asylum seekers.

And we must recognise that quitting Afghanistan with the job only half-finished will put Britain in peril.

But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.

The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.

Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.

Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.

Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.

Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.

Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.

We share their pain. We salute their courage.

So despite admitting they did 'not know' if al-Qaeda was reponsible, they put ''Al-Qaeda' massacre' on the front page anyway.

This version of the editorial has been deleted from the Sun's website and the 'new' version contains no mention of the fact it has been amended.

(Post updated following Terry's comment to correct the Duchess of Cambridge's title.)

Express apologises to Cherie Blair

The Daily Express has published the following apology to Cherie Blair:

In our 5 November 2010 article “Burkha ‘no more a threat than a nun’s habit’ says Cherie” we reported that Cherie Blair had, in a speech to Muslim women, defended the wearing of the Burkha and that this was a change from her previously stated opposition to the Burkha and to full-face veils.

In fact, Mrs Blair spoke in support of Muslim women’s right to wear their traditional hair cover which leaves the face uncovered. We accept that Mrs Blair made no comment about the Burkha and her views on face coverings had not changed. We apologise to Mrs Blair for this error and any confusion caused.

'Face the Facts' on media coverage of Muslims

Today's Face the Facts on BBC Radio 4 looked at Islamophobia and asked:

Are sections of the British press increasing tensions within communities by publishing negative stories about Muslims?

...why are newspapers publishing distorted, islamophobic stories that provoke far-right extremists? Should the Press Complaints Commission impose tougher sanctions? Or do editors need to take more responsibility for the consequences of what they print?

It is an excellent investigation by John Waite that debunks Winterval (with help from Kevin Arscott), the extractor fan and swimming pool stories, the Muslim plots (that weren't) against Coronation Street and the Pope, the smearing of Inayat Bunglawala and the tale of 'diktat' to change school lessons because of Ramadan.

It also includes an interview with the PCC's Stephen Abell.

But were any of the newspapers that pump out this rubbish willing to defend their 'stories'?

Neither the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Star or Sun wished to appear on the programme today, and the editor of the Express was simply 'too busy'.

What a surprise.

Police rubbish Sun's claim of 'Al-Qaeda threat to Coronation Street'

The Sun have produced an eye-catching headline for today's front page splash:


The article, by Guy Patrick, claims:

Cops are throwing a ring of steel around tonight's live episode of Coronation Street over fears it has been targeted by AL-QAEDA.

They were tipped off that the ITV1 soap's historic 50th anniversary broadcast from Manchester could be hit by a terror strike.

It goes on to repeat several suspiciously vague quotes from suspiciously anonymous sources - including one from a Greater Manchester Police spokesman which doesn't really back-up the Sun's story:

"This is a public, high-profile event. The risk is consistent with the UK terror threat, which is currently severe."

But a named Greater Manchester Police spokesman, Supt Jim Liggett, is quoted elsewhere saying something rather different:

"I want to clarify that we have categorically not been made aware of any threat from Al-Qaeda or any other proscribed organisation.

"Quite simply, Granada approached GMP to inform us they were employing a private security firm to help ensure tonight's live programme went ahead without outside interference.

"As part of their operation they asked for police assistance and we agreed to deploy a very small number of officers and PCSOs to help patrol the set's perimeter fence.

"This small police operation will be paid for by Granada and will not cost taxpayers a extra penny.

"To reiterate there is no specific intelligence threat to Coronation Street or any such event. However, the UK threat level remains at severe and people are encouraged to be vigilant."

So a completely made-up 'exclusive' - as if that wasn't obvious before the Police's denial.

However, the Sun have managed to give tonight's live episode of Coronation Street a bit of free publicity and they might have sold some extra newspapers based on their scaremongering headline. In the end, that's probably all this front page ever intended to do.

Muslims and the Daily Star

During November, only seven different topics appeared as the front page lead on the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday. Here's the list, together with the number of times they appeared:

The X Factor - 12 days
Katie Price and/or Peter Andre - 6 days
Muslims - 3 days
Footballers - 3 days
Royal Wedding - 3 days
I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here - 2 days
Gordon Ramsay - 1 day

So for almost half the month, half-true (at best) stories about reality TV shows dominated the Star's front page. Another ten front pages were wasted on the sex lives and family feuds of celebs, chefs and footballers. Three front pages were devoted to the Royal Wedding.

The only other stories splashed on the front page were about Muslims, and they all fitted the Star's usual agenda:



Why is it that the only times the Star ran with what might be called non-celebrity news, it's negative stories about Muslims?

Take a look at that last headline. For one thing, there was no actual, physical 'knife attack' but some disgusting, bullying threats posted on Facebook. So the headline isn't really true.

But, as Minority Thought highlighted, look how it is 'Muslim' kids (or 'thugs', as they seem to prefer) against a 'Brit' kid.

The Mail's report on the same incident carried the headline:


Why the need to talk about 'Brits' and 'whites' as separate from Muslims?

Them and us, us and them.

And when the Sun wrote about the story, the 'white girl' was mentioned and the blame was placed solely on 'five Muslim schoolboys.'

This singling out occurred in two other stories in recent weeks.

When a pig was removed from an Early Learning Centre (ELC) play set, the Sun's headline said it was for 'religious reasons' and, in the story, claimed it was because the pig might:

upset Muslim and Jewish parents.

But as Exclarotive pointed out, the Mail's headline mentioned only one religion:


(The statement from ELC said: ‘We have taken the decision to reinstate the pigs and will no longer sell the set in international markets where it might be an issue.’)

The other story was about Rochdale's Christmas lights, which had a small mention on the front page of the Daily Star on 19 November under the ludicrous headline 'Christmas 'nicked' by Muslims.'

Had it been 'nicked'? No. But Rochdale Council had decided to put some 'Happy Eid' and 'Happy Diwali' lights up with the Christmas ones. So nothing had been 'nicked' and the Star could have run 'Christmas 'nicked' by Hindus' if they'd wanted. But they didn't.

As for the poppy burning on Remembrance Day, here's what Richard Littlejohn said in the Mail:

They looked like the same crowd demonstrating outside the Old Bailey last week when that Muslim madwoman was convicted of stabbing MP Stephen Timms.

Well, except that there were only three people outside the Old Bailey, and between 30 and 50 at the poppy burning. He went on:

Yet although 50 people took part in this atrocity, there were only three arrests - and judging by the pictures it was the counter-demonstrators from the so-called English Defence League who had their collars felt.

In fact, eight people were arrested including two of the Muslims protestors.

But while the poppy burning incident got acres of media coverage, some of the reactions to it have not.

Press Not Sorry published two posts showing the comments left on the English Defence League's Facebook page, where the home address of one of the Muslim protestors was, apparently, published. But the vile threats left on Facebook - to kill this protestor, to torture him, to burn him, his house and his family - didn't make the Star's front page. Or any other page.

And if the Star was interested in what Muslims do with poppies, they could have reported on the £20,963 raised by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association's poppy appeal drive in Croydon. The local paper said the group was 'singled out for praise' by the Royal British Legion.

Their efforts received a small mention in the Sun, but was ignored elsewhere.

A spate of incidents in Portsmouth have also been largely ignored. In the days following the poppy burning:

An imam in Portsmouth has said he is saddened his mosque has been targeted twice in two days after remembrance poppies were burnt in London.

A poppy was painted on the front of the Jami mosque, on Victoria Road North in Southsea, on Friday and on Saturday 100 people staged a demonstration outside.

Hampshire police said there had been no arrests but that they would continue to monitor the situation.

Muhammad Muhi Uddin said he condemned Thursday's poppy burning.

And then:

A Muslim academy in Portsmouth has been the target of two hate crimes in the past fortnight, police have said.

In the first incident, a brick with a racist message on it was thrown into the Portsmouth Muslim Academy, on Old Commercial Road, on 13 November.

A beer bottle was then thrown through a window at the front of the building last Friday.

But neither the Star, Mail or Express decided these events or the poppy-selling efforts of young Muslims was important enough to tell their readers. Why not?

The situation at the Star has led to Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate writing to the rag's editor, Dawn Neesom, to ask that they 'tone down the shrill'. He explains:

Our first target is the Daily Star. We've gone through the past seven years of the newspaper and found hundreds of negative articles about Muslims - and very few positive. Many of the articles over-exaggerate the importance of tiny Muslim extremist groups while ignoring more mainstream Muslim opinion and use the words of these extremists to smear an entire faith. On other occasions they print inaccurate or slanted articles that whip up fear and mistrust.

We can only hope that this campaign for more responsible journalism has some effect. Until then, we will have to hope that the Star sticks to the pointless 'celebrity' tittle-tattle.

PCC rejects complaints about 'bacon smell offends Muslims' story

Last month, the Mail reported that a cafe in Stockport will have to remove its extractor fan 'because the smell of...frying bacon 'offends' Muslims'.

This wasn't true.

The fan has to be removed because the cafe owners (one of whom is Muslim) were refused planning permission for it. Moreover, the only person who officially complained about the smell during the planning application process was a member of the non-Muslim family who lived next door to the cafe.

Three people complained to the PCC about the story - versions of which also appeared in the Metro and Telegraph - but it has rejected the complaints. Apparently, despite the Mail saying the fan was being 'torn down' because 'the smell of frying bacon 'offends' Muslims' the PCC says:

readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission.

Here's the full PCC ruling :

The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.

While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.

The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.

However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.

While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

(Hat-tip to Dave, one of the complainants)

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has written an excellent post which points out that the vast majority of the 544 comments that appeared on the Mail's article were written by people who had clearly been 'misled' - despite the PCC saying that 'would not' happen. He writes:

The articles were clearly prejudicial because the headlines and intros were misleading. The end result was to feed anti-Muslim bigotry.

To build a story based on one man's unsupported statement when it involves the delicate matter of religious intolerance shows a reckless disregard for the pubic interest and social cohesion.

In the PCC's opinion, "the body of the articles" in the Mail and Telegraph made the situation "clear."

Come off it! The papers did not run this story because it involved the removal of an extractor fan. They ran it because it fitted their own anti-Muslim agendas.

The Express, the Star and angry mobs

Minority Thought has done an excellent job in looking at today's overblown Express front page headline and story.

The Express and its sister paper the Daily Star have tried to create a division between 'Muslims' and 'us' many times before. And the Express has form in trying to make the pronouncements of a few Muslims representative of the whole religion, too.

And in this case, 'a few' is right. Despite the Express using emotive terms such as 'angry mob' and 'another demonstration raged outside' it appears only three people were involved and, apart from shouting, all they did was wave around some bits of A4 paper with homemade slogans printed out in black and red capital letters.

By contrast, the demonstrations of the 'angry mob' called the English Defence League don't get mentioned on the front page of the Express. Their demos are bigger, involve people who hide their identity and usually end with people being arrested. Apparently, the Express isn't so concerned about that.

Mor, indeed, is the Daily Star, which has often taken a quite uncritical line on the EDL, under headlines such as 'Case for the Defence'. Recently, the Star's coverage of the EDL's plans to march in towns that ban Christmas (yes, really...) was praised by one EDL-supporting blogger.

Minority Thought sums up the Express' article perfectly:

The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British"...

That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslims thinks about the British.

* Minority Thought has also taken the Express to task recently over another 'health and safety bans...' myth.

The Express claimed that a ten-year-old swimmer had been 'banned from wearing googles because of health and safety'.

Usually these health and safety stories are about people being forced to wear goggles. But this one isn't true either - the advice (not ban) is that kids who swim should get used to eye contact with water. Health and safety had nothing to do with it.

What's in a name?

Just like last year, the Mail is once again foaming at the mouth about baby names. Here's the ten most popular boys' names in 2009, as listed by the Mail:


Naturally, the headline the Mail then sticks on the story is:

Despite 'Mohammed' actually appearing at number 16 on the list (the same position as last year), the Mail has added up 12 variations of the name in order to claim it's now the most popular and create a bit of anti-Muslim scaremongering.

It's much the same article as they produced last year, so the points made about it by this blog last year still stand.

It's hard to take this game seriously. There are clear cultural reasons why Mohammed is so popular among Muslim families, but it's a relatively small number overall.

The Mail says that when you add 12 other recognised variations of Mohammed together, the number of boys given that name in 2009 was 7,549 (out of 362,135 boys born).

Yet the ONS figures show that the number of boys given those same 12 names in 2008 was 7,673.

Overall, this accounted for 2.09% of all boys born in 2008, a very slightly higher number than the 2.08% in 2009.

(Jonathan at No Sleep 'Til Brooklands has more)

Mail blames Muslims over planning dispute

The Mail's latest 'look what we have to do because of Muslims' tale is this:

The headline was changed while writing this post, to:

'Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan because neighbour claimed 'smell of frying bacon offends Muslims''.

But it's worth noting that the original headline, shown at the top of the browser window, was:

'Cafe owner ordered to remove extractor fan in case smell of frying bacon offends passing Muslims'.

Was that the real reason? The article begins:

A hard-working cafe owner has been ordered to tear down an extractor fan - because the smell of her frying bacon 'offends' Muslims.

Planning bosses acted against Beverley Akciecek, 49, after being told her next-door neighbour's Muslim friends had felt 'physically sick' due to the 'foul odour'.

Notice the use of emotive terms 'hard-working' and 'tear down'.

But then we learn that the cafe owner's husband (Cetin) is a 'Turkish Muslim'. Clearly, he hasn't complained or been offended. The owner says:

Cetin's friends actually visit the shop, they're regular visitors, they're Muslim people, they come in a couple of times a week. I have Muslim people come in for cheese toasties. Cetin cooks the food himself, he cooks the bacon.

No 'offence' there either then.

But then it becomes clear that the complaints about the smell coming from the cafe's extractor fan were not from random passing Muslims.

Indeed, the planning application details appear to show that there was just one official complaint - and that was from the person who lives next door to the cafe:

Mr [Graham] Webb-Lee said: 'The vent is 12 inches from my front door. Every morning the smell of bacon comes through and makes me physically sick.'

Notice he says the smell makes him 'physically sick', not his Muslim friends, as the Mail claimed in the second paragraph. And yes, he does mention his 'Muslim friends' couldn't 'stand the smell'. But using the term 'Muslim friends' strongly implies he's not actually Muslim himself - if he was, it's likely the Mail would have mentioned it somewhere.

According the cafe owner, Webb-Lee told a council meeting:

...he had a daughter with an eating disorder, the Muslim friends, and the bad smell all the time is making his clothes smell.

Add to that his comments that the smell makes him 'physically sick' and you wonder why the Mail has decided to only highlight one of these reasons...

After all, the Council ruled that the smell from the fan was unacceptable to everyone:

A spokesman for Stockport Council said: 'The retrospective application was rejected on the grounds of residential amenity, as the committee felt the odours given off from the vent were unacceptable for neighbouring residents.'

So the cafe owners are being forced to remove the extractor fan because they didn't get planning permission when they installed it and when the (almost certainly non-Muslim) neighbour complained about the smell, their subsequent planning application was refused because it was giving off unacceptable odours.

At time of writing, this was the second story on the Mail's homepage.

'Lack of care'

On 15 July, the Star put this on its front page:


The story was about a plan for a few 'squat toilets' to be installed in a shopping centre in Rochdale.

There were several problems with the story - the most obvious being that two of the claims on the front page were clearly inaccurate: the toilets weren't 'Muslim-only', and they weren't to be paid for by the taxpayer.

Jamie at Exclarotive blogged about the story at the time, including how a Rochdale Councillor denied the 'inaccurate reports in some national newspapers'. The Star then claimed they had 'blocked' (see what they did there?) the 'Muslim-only loos' when an anonymous source said the plan was being reconsidered.

Now we learn that the PCC has upheld a complaint against the Star, which has published the adjudication on page 2 of today's paper (there appears to be no mention of it on the front page, where the original appeared):

The complainant - who did not represent Rochdale Council or the Rochdale Exchange Centre, neither of whom had complained to the Commission - said that it was inaccurate to say that the toilets were “Muslim-only”: the facilities, which were common to many countries, would be available to all.

In addition, the decision to pay for the ‘nile pans’ was taken by the shopping centre itself, rather than the local council. It did not therefore involve taxpayers’ money.

The newspaper said that - while non-Muslims could have used the loos - they were designed with Muslims in mind.

Nonetheless, it accepted that the headline was inaccurate in that non-Muslims would be free to use the toilets.

It also accepted that the loos were paid for by a private developer. It suggested the publication of the following correction on page 2, in addition to the removal of the article from its website:

"Our 15 July article said that squat style loos at Rochdale Exchange Centre were for Muslims only and were a waste of the council’s money. We are pleased to make clear that the loos may be used by non-Muslims and that they were paid for by the developer."

The complainant asked for the newspaper to publish an apology.

That first sentence is interesting because it seems that although the PCC regards this a third-party complaint, where there are two organisations that could be considered a 'first party', it has upheld it anyway.

Good.

Here's the PCC's adjudication:

In this prominent story, there were two clear errors of fact which, in the circumstances, would have misled readers in a significant manner: the toilets could not be described as “Muslim only”; and were not paid for by the local council.

While the newspaper had accepted that the article was wrong - and offered to correct the item - the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

This led to a breach of Clause 1 of the Code which makes clear that newspapers must “take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

The complaint was upheld.

But the Star still doesn't seem to have actually apologised.

And for the PCC to be concerned about the 'lack of care' the Star takes over its front page headlines? That suggests this headline was, somehow, a mistake, rather than calculated to whip up resentment and hatred.

Surely they know - after the McCanns, Peaches Geldolf, the ash cloud, GTA: Rothbury, 'Lamps and Bleakley', Cheryl Cole, Big Brother and countless other examples - that the Star's presentation of stories show (what can generously be called) this 'lack of care' far too often?

(Hat tip to James)

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)