The Media Blog

Daily Mail's moral compass not for turning?

The Daily Mail comes in for a lot of criticism, even on these very pages, but credit where it's due. Call The Mail prudish, Victorian, Draconian, anachronistic if you will, but there is no denying it knows its readers and it sticks steadfastly to a strict set of guiding principles.

You know instinctively what it will say on almost any issue and while The Mail may dislike young people it is certainly willing to be the self-appointed guardian of their moral well-being: from attacking pop videos for their fleshy content and effect on impressionable young minds, to expressing concerns about young girls' negative body image and rising rates of teenage pregnancies. In a nutshell, The Daily Mail wages a daily war against anything which prematurely sexualises young people.

But enough of this talk, here's a picture of a "stunning" 14-year-old girl in a bikini from The Daily Mail today. (It's your call if you click on the link).

Daily Mail jinxes London 2012

Last month we witnessed the traditional media cycle surrounding an England performance at a major sporting tournament:

• Moderate expectations based upon a modest qualifying performance;
• A gradual build up of excitement and hype as the tournament approaches;
• A growing chorus of opinion from 'expert' commentators (normally ex-players) that we can or even should win;
• Inevitable disappointment at a performance that doesn't live up to the billing;
• A backlash of hatred and contempt for the over-hyped, under-delivering players;
• A promise to ourselves - both media and public alike - that we will never get trapped in this cycle again.

This whole cycle is a perfect conspiracy between the media and the punters - none of us really believes England can win, but it's almost as if it's no fun if we don't go into a tournament with that bizarre idea in our heads.

Repeat for 44 years in an unending whirlwind of self-loathing and misery.

So after the debacle of the 2010 World Cup, we heard the usual cynical and sarcastic comments from disillusioned journalists about Englands "golden generation" - a phrase ominously nicked from another country (Portgual) whose golden generation didn't win anything either.

Never again, the newspapers tutted, would we wheel out such a hubristic phrase. Let's keep expectations more realistic next time. So it was good to see the Daily Mail yesterday beginning the cycle all over again for the biggest sporting event in Britain's history - the 2012 London Olympics.

"Spotlight falls on our golden generation with two years to go," reads the headline.

Nothing can go wrong here then, eh?

Shock findings: Men don't fancy ring-tailed lemurs

Fascinating story from the Metro today.

Contraceptives can alter scent in a way that puts off potential sexual partners, a new US study shows. British experts... urged women to take care when considering hormonal contraception, especially injections.

Scary stuff, especially for anybody hoping contraception would actually be complementary to a lifestyle which included a sexual relationship. Tell me more about this newsworthy finding:

The findings come from tests on ring-tailed lemurs in Madagascar... Twelve female lemurs were given monthly shots of MPA...

Oh right, no, fair play. I don't fancy ring-tailed lemurs either.

Apologies to all at the Metro, I let the use of "women" and "men" in the headline, not to mention the picture of the naked human female, make me think this was a story relevant to a less ring-tailed audience.  

Thanks to @DrPetra for the heads up.

Flying? Ant? ...nah, can't picture it...

OK, so it took us a while to find this one, but what a picture caption from The Metro:

Emmerdale 'sorry' about jam rags and pile cream

ITV1 soap Emmerdale has apologised after Mediawatch censured its use of "jam rags" and "pile cream" on a shopping list in one of its scenes.

According to The Press Association, a Mediawatch spokesperson branded the use of 'jam rags' as "vulgar", "inappropriate" and "unnecessary" - but Ofcom received no complaints about the episode.

This didn't stop the Daily Mail from reporting this "OUTRAGE", which "shocked many viewers when it was shown on Friday night's show".

[Image: I tried to get a still from ITV Player but it was taking forever - so I 'borrowed' this from the Mail Online. I was, however, amused to see a number of Bodyform adverts punctuating some of the episodes.]

Let's not forget who first cracked 'Brokeback' gag

By far the most embarrassing detail of David Davis's alleged mockery of David Cameron and Nick Clegg seems to have been overlooked these past few days. 

Was it letting his guard down within earshot of some eavesdropping FT journos? Was it having his scorn for his own government's leadership made public? Was it his rapid back-tracking and the attempt to shunt blame onto Lord Ashcroft for the Brokeback Mountain comment?

Or was it recycling a joke first made by Richard Littlejohn?

For shame.

However, nobody appears to have credited Littlejohn as the source of this weak gag ...possibly because very few people ever eavesdrop on what he has to say nowadays.

Telegraph cries foul over Wikileaks' 'Lefty bias'

The Telegraph's Will Heaven has reacted angrily to The Guardian getting the scoop on Wikileaks' war logs:

"Wikileaks is a website with no political agenda, its founder Julian Assange would have you believe. So I'm puzzled by today’s "Afghanistan war log" story. It doesn’t strike me – or many of my colleagues – as politically neutral to feed such sensitive information to three Left-leaning newspapers: namely The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel."

To be fair, Heaven may well have a point but it would be easy for readers to assume his comments owe more to professional sour grapes than genuine concern about Wikileaks' political neutrality.

Sun shakes its fist at 'posh wank' scandal

The Sun, which for years has prided itself on providing the UK's male population with a daily dose of bare-breasted titillation is today up in arms at some porn-related largesse within the NHS. It reports:

HEALTH chiefs blew £7,500 on a special room where patients can watch PORN.

That's upper-case "PORN" ladies and gentlemen... which as we all know is the most shocking kind.

Of course this purpose-built suite is actually a facility intended to attract and retain more sperm donors, rather than a distasteful alternative to the TV room for frustrated in-patients.  

The suite boasts computer equipment worth £4,625, flat screen TVs costing £2,225 - plus £500 of blue movies.

Having pointed out that other NHS trusts make do with a few dog-eared old magazines, The Sun then quotes rentaquote outrage engine the Tax Payers Alliance whose mission in life appears to be to put a totally one-sided, negative spin on any public expenditure (you can generate your own TPA quotes here) without even a cursory examination of the costs:

"This money could have been spent on treatment rather than on trying to improve on methods that have always worked just fine."

Some points The Sun glosses over in the name of cheap outrage and an unchecked regurgitation of the TPA's ignorant spin include:

1) The current system isn't working "just fine". In fact, according to the British Fertility Society the UK currently has a severe shortage of sperm donors and it is looking at ways to increase the numbers and thereby stem a trend of fertility tourism which sees UK couples look overseas for sperm and egg donors.  

2) The newly-opened Liverpool facility is the largest of its kind in the UK, covering Merseyside, Cheshire and North Wales, built with the intention of attracting highly profitable private patients from around the UK and worldwide who would fund the provision of NHS treatment at no additional cost to the taxpayer. As such the modest up-front investment is clearly intended to pay for itself by making the process of donating sperm more attractive. More sperm donors - literally a 'money-shot' if you will - equals more IVF treatment.

3) Only around a quarter of IVF treatment in the UK is funded by the NHS. Couples undertaking private treatment could expect to pay between £4,000 - £8,000 for a course of treatment, meaning just one couple could be enough to pay for this forward-looking facility outright. 

So, with a little research The Sun could easily have presented this as an interesting case study in how modernisation within the health sector is putting public services on a more commercial footing through investment in improving services. But that wouldn't be a good story would it. 

Top 10 Media Blog posts from the past week

1. Jon Snow v Zac Goldsmith: "A complete travesty of the truth"

2. Ooh don't tempt us... BT opens vote on what happens next to broadband couple

3. Daily Star: "FURY" erupts over made-up story

4. 'Unwanted' Nick Griffin shares address with Buckingham Palace press pack

5. Digital highs are a "made up" drug

6. Sexist! Racist! Non-existent Foreign Office ban on middle-class white males

7. Historic English Heritage site abused by lone doggie-fiddler

8. Jonathan Ross: 2001 - 2010

9. BBC boss Mark Byford expenses £5,000 World Cup flights

10. It's Lohan v Presley in National Enquirer death match

Sexist! Racist! Non-existent Foreign Office ban on middle-class white males

See if you can spot the obvious flaw in this Daily Mail story claiming that:

"[Foreign Office] work placement schemes specifically ban white, middle-class males from applying for the £367-a-week positions. Under the tightly-drawn rules, only women, people from ethnic minorities and the disabled are entitled to apply for a chance to work at one of the great offices of state."

The story goes on to explain the "bizarre 'middle-class' male ban" by revealing that the schemes are open to people from several backgrounds, including those with a registered disability and those from a household with an income of £25,000 or lower.

This means that white middle-class males who have a disability can take part in the work placement scheme. White males from households with an income of less then £25,000 can also apply - this would justify the 'middle-class banned' claim only if your definition of middle-class was based on income. I guess that would mean that people who lost their jobs immediately stopped being middle class.

So, despite the quote above, there is not a specific ban on white, middle-class males. And it is not true that "only women, people from ethnic minorities and the disabled are entitled to apply".

Although the story is utter rubbish, the comments underneath are depressingly predictable. The top-rated comments as I write this are idiots with statements such as:

To ban someone from a job on the grounds of race, sex or social background is completely illegal - unles the ban is applied to white, British males. Then it is apparently perfectly acceptable.  This must be challenged in the courts. It is completely illegal.

This is sex, racial and age discrimination and is absolutely and indubitably a criminal offence, so let those whom made this rule appear in the dock and explain their crime to a judge.

As we have long suspected, "diverse", "diversity", and "multiculturalism" means: white men need not apply. I'd call it racist, but we all know that whites can't be victims, so.... <sarcasm>

One commenter does point out that the story is rubbish. Sadly his comment is one of the worst rated by other readers:

So if you're disabled and middle class you wouldn't be banned, if you're a woman and middle class you wouldn't be banned, if you're student getting the grant you wouldn't be banned, nothing at all to do with middle class people not allowed to apply. Still once again, don't let facts get in the way of your rant inciting stories.

At least that iDosing story was true. Oh.

Liz Jones shows the world what poverty and hardship looks like

One has to feel sorry for Liz Jones, the Mail's intrepid countryside reporter, as she struggles with the global recession in deepest, darkest Devon.

In the Mail on Sunday's You magazine (25th July), she writes about her desire to sell her existing property and downsize to a more humble dwelling. I defy anyone not to relate to her troubles; after all, all she wants from her new, smaller, cheaper home is:

"a small cottage with enough room for four collies and 17 cats, land for the horses and sheep, a couple of stables, a yard, and direct riding onto the moor and the forest."

Yep, that's how I'd tackle mounting debts and a plummeting property market, too. Sell up, but make it clear to estate agents and your readers that your idea of penury doesn't involve giving up, um, very much at all, really.

Desmond staff hail Channel 5 deal

Daily Star columnist Garry Bushell has been quick today to obseqiously proclaim his employer, Richard Desmond's acquisition of Channel 5:

THE GREATEST TV REVOLUTION IN OVER 20 YEARS

WELCOME to the fold, Channel 5! Britain’s youngest national television network is now part of the mighty Daily Star Sunday’s family.

Anybody else just feel a shiver run down their spine (or do a little sick in their mouth)? Not at Channel 5, where staff are over the moon about the prospect of life under Richard Desmond.

Again, it falls to Bushell to inform us:

CHANNEL 5's biggest stars have welcomed the new era. The Live From Studio Five team – Jayne Middlemiss, Ian Wright and Kate Walsh – said [presumably speaking as one]: "We hear Richard Desmond loves celebrity gossip and great entertainment and that's what our show's all about".

Clever trick that, speaking in unison (cynics may assume these were not in fact interviews, just soundbytes written for and approved by Desmond). Meanwhile:

Five News anchor Matt Barbet said: "It's exciting the channel has a new owner prepared to invest in it and the continuing success of shows like Five News."

Presenter Melinda Messenger said: "It's so exciting that Richard Desmond has bought the channel. He is such a creative force."

Messenger has worked for Desmond before of course when she used to get her top off in the Daily Star. Such creativity.

Related:
Exclusive: Richard Desmond's plans for Channel 5 revealed

Exclusive: Richard Desmond's plans for Channel 5 revealed

News that Richard Desmond, owner of The Express and newly apologetic Daily Star, as well as magazines such as OK! and adult TV channels Television X and Red Hot TV, has acquired Channel 5 has caused something of a stir across the media world. 

Critics and commentators have expressed concerns about the depths Channel 5 may now plunder under Desmond's ownership (Desmond being the brains behind Asian Babes, The Very Best of Mega Boobs and Spunk Loving Sluts to name but a few of his past publications), while others simply fear for the sanity of the nation if the editorial standards and prejudices of The Express and The Daily Star get an outlet on terrestrial TV.

The Media Blog has exclusively obtained a first look at some of the planned programming on a new-look Channel 5, below is a sneak preview (click to enlarge):

Guardian poll gamed by Tyler Brûlé's "loyal staff"

The Guardian recently published its Media 100 list which contained an annual run down of the 90 or so most powerful movers and shakers in the media world, fleshed out with some customary friends and relatives of the same.

But always democratic, the Guardian then threw open the voting to see who its readers thought was most conspicuous by their absence - who should be the 101^st person on the list? And that's where things started to go a little awry. 

I'll let The Guardian explain, not least because it apparently took three staffers to write up this account of the alleged voting rigging that ensued:

"Former Wallpaper editor Tyler Brûlé took the honours at the 11th hour after he received 160 votes in a 30-minute period just before the poll closed. An investigation revealed that Brûlé's 160 last-minute votes were all cast from a single internet address. And the IP address corresponded to ...the London headquarters of Brûlé's publishing group, Winkreative.

"Brûlé told MediaGuardian: "I have a very loyal staff. There was definitely no concerted effort... This is a loyal building. I am sure if someone saw that we were in fifth place they would rally the troops [wouldn't that be "a concerted effort" then?]... But even Brûlé was moved to admit that so many votes from just 80 [staff] was a little hard to explain."

No, it's really not; it's actually really easy to explain. Let me have a go: for whatever reason, somebody, or possibly several people, working within Winkreative's offices sat there voting multiple times until Brûlé came out on top. 

The only thing that surprises me is that if it took just 160 votes to swing the poll - and the person or persons involved were really so keen to see Brûlé scoop the coveted 101^st spot - why didn't they just rally people across social networks such as Twitter earlier in the voting process and win it by a distance, rather than relying upon a last minute flurry of votes from a single IP address.

The only question now (not counting 'who really cares anyway?') is whether The Guardian will let Brûlé keep his hard-fought 101^st place on the list.

BBC iPad apps get green light

The BBC has launched its first iPad and iPhone apps, after the BBC Trust ruled there was no need for further review of the plans or a public value test.

According to David Madden, executive product manager, BBC Mobile:

"Our aim is to develop a set of core public service apps that bring some of the BBC's most popular, distinctive and original content to mobile in an easy to use and convenient way. The first of these apps is BBC News. The BBC News app puts the latest news from our journalists across the UK and the world in the palm of your hand. We've developed an easy to use design which lets you scroll through the latest headlines on your phone. The idea is to create a truly mobile experience that gives you quick access to BBC News on the move."

The apps will enable users to personalise news pages, as well as stream BBC News 24 coverage over wi-fi (coming to a 3G connection near you, soon).

  

The lack of a public value test is certainly an interesting one given the far from universal adoption of the Apple devices. It could be argued therefore that these apps represent a disproportionate investment of licence fee payers' money. However, Erik Huggers, director of BBC future media & technology (and patron saint of taxi drivers), said:

"The rapid growth of internet-connected mobiles and smartphones in the market means we can cost-effectively provide our content and services on these devices, and this is a really important way for us to deliver online services in the future."

Daily Star admits it "made no attempt to check accuracy" of Raoul Moat story

Earlier this week the Daily Star made itself a laughing stock as it failed to apply even basic common sense tests to a story which anybody - bar the journalist and editor involved - could have spotted as a rather tasteless spoof.

Now the Daily Star has been forced to issue an embarrassing apology - and pay damages to the company it defamed. The wording of its comprehensive apology leaves very little the imagination in terms of just how flawed the paper's news-gathering processes are:

"On 21 July we published an article claiming that the videogames company Rockstar Games were planning to release a version of their popular Grand Theft Auto video games series titled "Grand Theft Auto Rothbury". 

"We also published what we claimed would be the cover of this game, solicited comments from a family member impacted by the recent tragedy and criticised Rockstar Games for their alleged plans. 

"We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story. We also did not question why a best-selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event. 

"It is now accepted that there were never any plans by Rockstar Games to publish such a game and that the story was false. We apologise for publishing the story using a mock-up of the game cover, our own comments on the matter and soliciting critical comments from a grieving family member. We unreservedly apologise to Rockstar Games and we have undertaken not to repeat the claims again.

"We have also agreed to pay them a substantial amount in damages which they are donating to charity."

The Metro's iPad app tells it how it is

 
  
Bless 'er. I suppose you'd have to be a bit weird to fall down a manhole.

What do you mean 'it's a section header'?

'Unwanted' Nick Griffin shares address with Buckingham Palace press pack

BNP leader Nick Griffin must have known attending a Buckingham Palace garden party was never going to be a straightforward case of simply turning up, showing his invite and entertaining fellow guests with some lighthearted banter about multi-culturalism and Holocaust denial over a cucumber sandwich or two.

But whether he was let in or not at the gate - and it transpired to be the latter - he would have known he was onto a good photo opportunity, especially if turned away. It would be the perfect platform to bemoan his treatment and the suppression of his political views by the establishment.

Cue much waving of his invite for the cameras. How could it possibly backfire?

Er, is that your address on the envelope Nick?

Of course Griffin's address is easily found online - not least because the details of all BNP members were published online back in 2008 - but he might like to be a little more discreet. I imagine even now, sales of rubber gloves, pooper-scoopers and maps of Welshpool are going through the roof.

Historic English Heritage site abused by lone doggie-fiddler

Hats off to The Telegraph for a sensitive telling of this troubling tale: Transvestite had sex with a dog at English Heritage castle.

It's not so much a shaggy dog story, more of a ...well, you get the picture (don't worry, there isn't one.)

I know what you're thinking: good attention to detail. After all, as The Telegraph appears to point out, it's the fact this horrific act took place in an English Heritage castle that makes it really inappropriate, right?

Steering clear of any reference to 'man bites dog' (or does anything to a dog for that matter), I am of course aware the psychology of the unexpected elevates a news story but to say this is interesting because the venue is unusual would first presume there was any location where such a crime would be considered usual.  

The Telegraph continued.

"The cross-dressing man was caught with the animal in the dry moat of King Henry VIII's Pendennis Castle overlooking Falmouth Bay in Cornwall."

And the view now is important why?

Does this seaside vista lend a certain romance to the triste? We are also informed "Pendennis Castle, managed by English Heritage, is a popular family tourist attraction", suggesting once more that the venue and the affront to its historic grandeur is the real crime here. Either that or the details were so scarce or sketchy, but the story too tempting, they have padded it out with so much filler to get into onto the page that the filler ultimately took over. 

"The 33-year-old mounted the pet after it chased him out of sight of its woman owner."

Now, is it just me or is The Telegraph shifting some of the blame onto the victim here? (Well if they will go around chasing transvestites... it was clearly asking for it).

Fortunately this individual (referred to as a "lone transvestite" - perhaps they normally hunt in packs) was caught, arrested and cautioned. We can but hope the dog was unharmed as The Telegraph actually fails to inform us of what you'd imagine to be a fairly important detail.

The final word instead goes to a spokesperson for English Heritage, who throughout the story appears to have been cast as the real victim in all of this:

"This was a very rare incident." 

What? A lone transvestite in a black dress sexually abusing a dog in the dry moat of King Henry VIII's Pendennis Castle, overlooking Falmouth Bay in Cornwall is a rare event, you say? Don't worry, I don't think anybody was imagining for one minute this was just another day at the office for English Heritage.

It's Lohan v Presley in National Enquirer death match

The National Enquirer can always be relied upon to ask the important questions in a tasteful and respectful manner (even if they can't always be relied upon to put a question mark at the end of said question). Today it's whether Lisa-Marie Presley can eat herself to death before jailbird Lindsay Lohan comes a cropper in the slammer. All of a sudden our own celebrity-obsessed tabloids don't seem so shoddy. 

  Hat tip to WebSquirrel for the pic.