The Telegraph is walking something of a fine line, trying to balance two causes it feels strongly about: supporting the 'No' campaign in the Scottish referendum and doing the BBC down at every opportunity.
The problem is, these two causes are hardly complementary, not least because the 'Yes' campaign is also intent on criticising the BBC for alleged bias in its campaign coverage. But The Telegraph was powerless to resist the suggestion the BBC had handpicked an episode of Dad's Army in an attempt to undermine the 'Yes' campaign. The paper quotes an unnamed 'Yes' campaigner:
“A total of 80 episodes of Dad’s Army were made by the corporation – and which one does it choose to show on the Saturday ahead of the vote?... The one in which Frazer tells Mainwaring that he can run the platoon better than him, is put in charge and then makes a total mess of things. Thank you very much, Auntie Beeb."
Fans of Dad's Army may point out Captain Mainwaring was hardly portrayed as a great leader either, prone as he was to blundering from calamity to calamity in every episode. They might also point out it was supposed to be a comedy, not a documentary.
The article then quotes one of the few surviving cast members of Dad's Army, adding his two-penneth in support of a 'No' vote:
"Frank Williams, who plays the Rev Timothy Farthing in the series, doesn’t believe that the BBC timed the episode to make a point, but he says that he is not himself in favour of Scottish independence."
For which Williams was thanked with a plug for his one-man-show.
According to the Telegraph, the Queen has "broken her silence" and made a "hugely significant intervention" in the Scottish independence debate.
So what did she do?
According to the Telegraph the "hugely significant" moment happened while the Queen was making small talk with some members of the public outside a church service in Balmoral:
"The Queen has broken her silence about the potential break-up of the United Kingdom by warning Scots to think "very carefully about the future" before casting their votes in the independence referendum... It is understood a well-wisher joked they were not going to mention the referendum, in response to which she remarked: "You have an important vote on Thursday... I hope people will think very carefully about the future."
So the Queen wasn't asked her thoughts on the referendum but seeing as it had been brought up she decided to play it safe with the kind of non-statement used by those trying to say nothing while apparently saying something. "I hope people will think very carefully about the future" is as safe and as reasonable as it is non-committal. But despite the Queen's caution, the Telegraph adds:
"Buckingham Palace insiders insisted her remarks were politically neutral but on Sunday night they were being viewed as the clearest sign yet she hopes for a No vote on Thursday."
It should be said, it is those who would like the Queen to come out in favour of a 'No' vote who have applied that interpretation. A case of hearing what they want to hear perhaps.
Taking things to even more tenuous lengths, the Telegraph thought it relevant to add that the Queen was leaving a church "service that had included a prayer asking God "to save us from false choices"".
The Telegraph has certainly been doing what it can to help support the 'No' campaign but some of its efforts have certainly looked increasingly desperate. Its Sunday edition carried a bizarre piece suggesting a 'Yes' vote would be an affront to dead soldiers.
Rona Fairhead, the former chief executive of the Financial Times Group and a non-executive director at HSBC and Pepsi has been named the new head of the BBC Trust. So how did the Sunday Telegraph report the appointment of such an accomplished figure in the worlds of business and media on its front page...
I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a reference to a male chief executive, chairman - or any male employee in fact - whose headline achievements are distilled down to how many children they have.
For example, in a story published on the Telegraph's website on Sunday, we were told 'Sir Mike Rake becomes RAC chairman'. Not only was there no mention of his marital status or the number of children he has in the headline, it wasn't even mentioned in the article. How on earth are we meant to judge his business credentials if we don't know how many kids he has? (For the record he has four, which the Telegraph could easily have found on the CBI website had they wanted to).
Daily Mail: 'Women, know your place'
As the World Cup Final went into extra time on Sunday night, newspaper editors were poised, waiting to put their papers to bed. Then Mario Götze scored, they all wrote the same headline and went to the pub.
At least nobody went with 'History Boys'.
The Telegraph claims to have discovered the existence of a 1,000 page dossier on the World Cup prepared by the BBC. It reports:
"There was a time when BBC commentators like John Motson were expected to do their own homework ahead of big games. But the modern-day BBC pundit has no need for coloured pens, filing cabinets or football yearbooks, because an army of researchers has compiled a giant book of World Cup facts for them. The BBC's "book", which is available electronically to presenters, is understood to run to more than 1,000 pages."
The Telegraph's chief reporter Gordon Rayner appears to suggest this tome would have been kept a closely guarded secret had commentator Steve Wilson not "let slip the existence of the BBC fact book during live coverage of the Argentina v Bosnia-Hercegovina match".
Which is not strictly true.
Anybody following BBC Radio 5 Live pundit John Hartson on Twitter could have seen the book for themselves when he tweeted a picture of it on 11 June and then gave his followers the chance to win a signed copy after the World Cup. Presenter Dan Walker, who also tweeted a pic to more than 300,000 followers, even gave his a hashtag:
It seems unlikely the BBC was trying to keep this secret and more likely they just didn't think anybody would be that interested - or surprised - to hear they do some research and preparation ahead of such major events (even if commentators don't always get it all right on the night).
For the record, the BBC has been providing these briefing books for staff covering major tournaments for the past 20 years, so it isn't even new.
National Football Museum
Dan Walker told the Media Blog he will be donating his, signed by the BBC commentary team, to the National Football Museum where its secret existence can be enjoyed by around 500,000 visitors per year.
It should also be pointed out, the "army of researchers" was just four people - Craig Barnes, Paul Birch, Tom McCoy and Noel Sliney - all named on the front of the book, as you can clearly see in Hartson's photo. What's more, the "1,000" pages the Telegraph reports is also actually just 436, according to one of the writers:
And the Telegraph's report is also wrong in its initial assertion that such briefing books would never have troubled the travel bag of John Motson. In John Motson's autobiography Motty: 40 Years in the Commentary Box, the BBC commentator writes not only about these books but also underlines the fact it is the work of just four people (which would be a rubbish "army") who do it as part of their day job:
"A team of four...working in the Match of the Day office service commentators, editors and producers with background material... They produce huge, detailed volumes of information before major events such as the World Cup."
The lesson here would appear to be if you're going to criticise somebody for doing too much research at least make sure you've done enough yourself.
Of course, the facts should never get in the way of the desired story and the Telegraph will be delighted with the reaction its erroneous claims have elicited. One commenter wrote:
"Yet more proof, as if any were needed, how these idiots who run the BBC waste our license fees. Let the grossly overpaid commentators do their own damn research - that's what they're paid for and sack the idiot at the BBC who authorised this waste of our money!"
Putting aside the irony of this armchair economist considering an inaccurate story to be proof of anything he would do well to ask himself how much more expensive it would be to have apparently "grossly overpaid commentators" pulling together a 1,000 page dossier... or even a 436 page one.
Guardian columnist Marina Hyde has hit out at controversial former Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys for defending Qatar's role as host of the 2022 World Cup. Hyde suggests Keys, who now lives and works in Doha "offers an apologist's masterclass" when sticking up for his "impeccable overlords".
Hyde brands Keys Qatar's own "Lord Haw-Haw" after he took to his personal blog to defend Qatar's suitability to host the competition. But the Guardian, of all publications, probably needs to be careful when accusing others of shameless fluffing on behalf of Qatar.
After all, the Guardian has an indelible stain on its record in that regard: I refer to the 2010 article in which the Guardian's Louise Taylor took shameless fluffing to a whole new level. (Read: 'Good trip then?', 27 November, 2010)
It was only under the pressure of intense criticism that the Guardian reluctantly admitted Taylor's puff piece was the result of some VIP treatment in the Gulf, paid for by the team behind the Qatar 2022 bid.
Remember when it felt like you couldn't open a newspaper without being told we were about to be hit with a deluge of immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria. We were told flights and buses were fully booked and as many as 29 million - the entire population of both countries - could be heading to the UK when controls were lifted on 1 January:
And then the media was left a little red-faced when just one Romanian immigrant seemed to turn up:
Now the numbers have been counted and the Office of National Statistics has today reported the number of Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK.... wait for it... fell by 4,000 over the first three months of 2014.
The Telegraph today brings us news of hard times in the home counties. Under the headline "I make £120,000 but I can't recall the last time we went out for dinner" we hear the story of one man whose family are feeling the pinch:
"The squeeze has really hit me and my family. Even though we have a reasonable income we have had to economise, swapping Ocado deliveries for trips to Tesco, never changing our cars or going on city breaks. I can't remember the last time we went out for dinner," says Guy Jackson, 53, a financial compliance officer in the City, who lives in Farnham, Surrey."
Swapping Ocado for Tesco? Oh the humanity!
The Telegraph informs us that among Jackson's outgoings are £45,000 on school fees.
"It is quite difficult for people like me to maintain our standard of living in the current climate, and that is a worry," he concludes.
The Telegraph doesn't mention whether there is a phone number for donations.
Update: In case you're wondering why Jackson would have opened himself up to such easy ridicule it seems he may have been taking one for the team. The Telegraph's article gives a plug to some research from a financial services company called Nutmeg. And although it is not mentioned by the Telegraph, Jackson's profile on LinkedIn suggests he is an employee of the same company (hat tip @Clairywoowoo).
The coverage of two very different stories over the past week has served as an interesting barometer of UK newspaper priorities. One is a tragic story from west Africa which has been developing since mid-April but gaining long-overdue worldwide attention in the past week, the other is a celebrity tale from Hollywood.
There is growing anger about how little media attention there has been on the human rights abuses in Nigeria which have seen more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped and subjected to terrible crimes.
Meanwhile it was almost impossible to miss the news that George Clooney got engaged this week.
Just five of nine national daily newspapers* covered the ongoing situation in Nigeria during the period of 28 April to 3 May compared to eight which covered the news of Clooney's engagement:
The story count for the week also shows a similar pattern with more stories in total being written about the Clooney engagement (34) than the Nigerian kidnappings (21). However, in terms of word count the two stories have seen almost identical levels of coverage over the past week with 11,449 words printed about George Clooney and 11,043 printed about the Nigerian kidnappings (though 4,824 of those words appeared in just one newspaper, The Guardian).
The Guardian's dominant role (4,824 words) in covering the news from Nigeria can be clearly seen when looking at the top three media outlets by word count. The Times (2,688 words) produced the second highest level of coverage followed, some may think surprisingly, by the Mirror (1,504 words):
Perhaps also surprising, The Guardian, with 2,430 words on the subject, printed the greatest amount of coverage of the George Clooney engagement (including 491 words on 'How will getting hitched affect Clooney's image?'). The Telegraph (2,090) was second followed by the Daily Mail (2,006).
Of course it could be argued that some of this may be down to the fact broadsheets typically run longer articles, though that isn't strictly true in this case. The Sun's longest article on George Clooney was 957 words, compared to 942 for The Guardian. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail and the Express produced the most articles about Clooney with seven apiece over the week, while the longest single article was an incredible 1,200 word monster in The Telegraph.
This is only a simple analysis of how the papers treated just two stories over a six day period and suggesting word count or story count are, on their own, an effective measure of priority - or quality - of coverage would be foolish. Looking at the balance struck on each paper individually perhaps paints the clearest picture of where papers' priorities were.
The Times and The Guardian had almost identical ratios of Nigerian news to Clooney engagement news:
It is of course entirely up to each newspaper to decide what their readers will want or need to know about and the Telegraph was obviously convinced its readers would be more interested in and better served by a focus on Clooney, while The Mirror was almost the exact opposite:
The Sun and The Express clearly believed the news from Nigeria would not be of interest or of importance to their readers, while both gave significant coverage to George Clooney's news:
The Daily Mail also decided against covering the Nigerian news while the Independent believed its readers would have - or should have - no interest in Clooney's happy news:
* For the purposes of this research the national newspapers analysed were the main print editions of The Sun, Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Independent, Daily Telegraph, Guardian and The Times printed during the period 28 April to 3 May. The Independent's i was omitted due to the duplication of content already counted in the Independent.
The Telegraph has launched a trademark attack on the BBC, claiming the organisation has been wasting money on luxury accommodation:
The Telegraph reports:
"The BBC has been accused of extravagance after it hired luxury accommodation for a 65 strong team ...to film a documentary about lambing. During filming ...the entire 65-strong team set up camp in a country house hotel where rooms cost up to £279-a-night."
But anybody familiar with the Telegraph's regular and often rather over-reaching attacks on the BBC may have already read the words "up to £279-a-night" and sensed a whiff of deliberate distortion in the air - and with good reason. Despite the headline claim, repeated in the opening paragraphs, it turns out the BBC actually paid just £58 per night – a detail the Telegraph does eventually acknowledge towards the end of its article.
And despite knowing its headline claim to be deliberately misleading, the Telegraph still sought some rentaquote outrage from right-wing pressure group the Taxpayers' Alliance who gladly criticised such "lavish expense" (the Taxpayers' Alliance seem to be the go-to people for supporting quotes in misleading media reports).
The Telegraph also criticised the BBC for not choosing instead to stay at the Meadows B&B in Peebleshire, where the owner provided some quotes which supported the notion the BBC had sought out the most unjustifiably lavish accommodation possible.
The Telegraph reports:
"Margaret Thain, of the Meadows B&B in the Peeblesshire village, said: "I would have loved to have people staying at my B&B, but I am probably not as exclusive..."
What Margaret doesn't mention is that she is arguably far more exclusive, given she has just two bedrooms for which guests will pay between £65 and £90. That would mean the BBC would not only have been paying more to stay there but would also have had to find another 32 B&Bs of a similar size and then manage the subsequently dizzying - and no doubt prohibitively expensive - logistics of having its entire team and equipment spread so inefficiently across a few hundred square miles of southern Scotland.
A spokeswoman for the BBC said of their hotel choice:
"This was the closest hotel to the filming location that was able to accommodate this number and is located on a main road, which is necessary in case of bad weather… The rate of £58 per night was the most economically sensible choice as the hotel offered a competitive rate for a group booking. The discounted rate of £58 per night was substantially less than other hotels in the area… The BBC was also able to save on transport costs by having all crew staying at the same hotel."
Which all sounds fairly reasonable.
Of course the BBC should be accountable for how it spends the public's money and there are examples of where the Corporation has got it badly wrong in the past. But the Telegraph going to such desperate lengths to criticise the BBC undermines the credibility of its own arguments against the broadcaster far more than it undermines any arguments in support of the BBC.
Over at the Daily Mail their own predictable hatchet job was even more clumsily conducted. While whole chunks appear to have been copied word-for-word from the Telegraph's flawed story, the Mail added this very strange passage:
Alex Hogg, chairman of campaign group the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, said: "I don't live far from where the latest Lambing Live was filmed for the BBC. How many BBC employees were needed to run some cables round a lambing shed? A dozen maybe? Twenty max? Almost 70 people were used and they stayed in some very exclusive country club."
Now, in common with a lot of people at the Mail and the Telegraph, I have no idea how many people are needed to pull together a live broadcast of this nature, but if I really wanted to find out I probably wouldn't start by asking the chairman of a Gamekeepers Association, no matter how close he lived to the location.
As users of Facebook or anybody with friends who have reproduced will know, if you've seen one baby photo then you've pretty much seen them all. Perhaps that was how they were feeling at The Telegraph on Sunday night when pairing the headline 'Prince George tours Down Under' with a photo of the royal tot and his mum which was actually taken in February in the Caribbean:
The royal jaunt down under has also seen The Telegraph forced to expunge a story which claimed local Maoris would be covering up for the royal couple and that Kate and William would be dining on kereru - an endangered bird.
The Telegraph has since removed the story from its website amid suggestions the paper's source had played a prank on them and other papers including the Express.
The New Zealand Herald reports:
"Claims in the British media that topless Maori female performers have been asked to cover up during the royal tour and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be served protected kereru have been rubbished by New Zealand officials... Associate Maori Affairs Minister Chris Finlayson - who slammed the claims as "an infantile prank" - believes the papers have been led astray..."
With mystery surrounding the disappearance of Malaysian flight MH370 the media are filling white space and air time with conspiracy theories, misinformation, baseless speculation and self-appointed experts offering up some quotable guesswork as to what could have happened, give or take some hefty ifs, buts and maybes.
From the Huffington Post inexplicably asking whether a student in the US had "solved the mystery of MH370" (answer: obviously not) to the Express declaring it the world's first 'cyber hijack', the media have been indulging in the kind of reporting of 'facts' normally reserved for late night conversations in taxis and take-aways.
It seems the wild speculation in the media comes from the very top as Rupert Murdoch has been taking to Twitter over the past week to share his own ill-informed thoughts on the matter.
Initially Murdoch was claiming the plane had crashed and blamed it on "jihadists" making trouble for China:
Then Murdoch changed his mind and decided the plane hadn't crashed but rather it had been stolen and was being hidden, possibly in northern Pakistan (obviously due to the strict character limit on Twitter, Murdoch was unable to share any kind of evidence to support his claims):
And then despite having proven he is as clueless as the rest of us, Murdoch went on to again link the disappearance to a "Muslim extremist threat":
Meanwhile, while those in the media try to entice readers with sensational headlines and baseless speculation, the families of those passengers who disappeared with flight MH370 wait for some genuine news amid a mire of misinformation.
The big non-news story today sees Brussels trying to banish "the traditional British breakfast" by meddling with our jam. The EU is hell-bent on allowing fruit spreads which contain just 50 per cent sugar - as opposed to the 60 per cent used in traditional jam recipes - to be marketed as "jam".
It's worth being clear that jam as we know it will in no way be affected, yet the media are still trying hard to look like they give a toss. The Express, Telegraph, Mirror and Sky News are all running the story.
"EU rules cutting the amount of sugar in jam could bring an end to the traditional British breakfast…"
No hyperbole there then.
"Lib Dem MP Tessa Munt … told MPs that consumers would be left confused if producers were able to sell products labelled as jam when they were only 50 per cent sugar as their consistency would be similar to inferior European fruit spreads that often "tasted like mud", MPs heard."
Those inferior European spreads, coming over here, stealing our breakfast.
Rarely do the right wing press get to combine two of their biggest dislikes - immigration and the BBC - in one story.
But the Telegraph has managed it this morning. Under the headline: "BBC criticised over rare migrant birds featured in 'Tweet of the Day'" the Telegraph reports:
"Radio 4 listeners have woken to the melodious sound of birdsong since the station began its early morning Tweet of the Day slot earlier this year to educate the nation about the calls of British species. However, some wildlife lovers have been left annoyed that the producers have chosen to include rare migrant birds that only stop in the UK for a few weeks of the year."
"One frustrated listener, wrote: "I don't class these birds as British, so why are we listening to them?"
I don't know, these foreign birds, coming over here, eating our worms, happy to take our nuts and berries, yet they refuse to learn how to sing in English... etc.
A number of newspapers, including the Telegraph, Times and Daily Mail, have picked up on comments from MI5 boss Sir Andrew Parker who suggested the Guardian has jeapordised "the safety of this country and its citizens" by lifting the lid on the extent of secret surveillance operations by GCHQ:
"[The Guardian] revealed how GCHQ was able to hoover up vast amounts of personal information, including websites visited, emails sent and received, text messages, calls and passwords..."
Which is clearly in the public interest.
The Mail goes on to remind readers that "David Cameron authorised the destruction of computers at The Guardian offices" and "sent Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to demand that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger destroy files".
The Mail clearly believes the government was right to try to silence and intimidate The Guardian.
Meanwhile over at The Telegraph, the paper claims:
"Sources find it incomprehensible that exposing spy agency techniques for tracking terrorists has been argued to be in the public interest... and it is understood the Guardian continued to expose the information despite pleas from the Government not to reveal intelligence techniques."
The Telegraph clearly believes the government should have been able to silence the Guardian, despite a Telegraph editorial earlier this week which stated:
"A free press is one that is free from government or political interference… For all their protestations to the contrary, our politicians are proposing to bring back statutory press control for the first time in more than 300 years. This is unacceptable."
...unless the government is trying to hush up the Guardian, in which case that's OK apparently.
The Daily Mail too is aggressively opposed to any state interference in the media. Earlier this week the paper was quick to run a quote from Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors and one of the few people to stand up for the Mail in the wake of its hatchet job on Ralph Miliband. Satchwell told the Mail:
"An editor should be free to edit the papers in the way that he wants."
…unless it's the Guardian's editor, in which case, that's different apparently.
With such ifs, buts and exceptions it's no wonder some papers want a system of self-regulation. It would certainly make it a lot easier to make it up as they go along.
As if the obvious concerns about hosting a global sporting event in searing desert temperatures and in a country with a controversial contemporary human rights record weren’t problems enough, the Guardian has exposed systematic abuses of the immigrant workforce constructing World Cup infrastructure.
If only the Guardian had been so critical of Qatar before it was awarded the World Cup. Instead, the paper despatched a wide-eyed reporter on an all-expenses paid jolly to the Arab state, where she proceeded to write the kind of glowing endorsement her hosts from the Qatar bid team could barely have dreamed of:
"In-between games, fabulous beach-front hotels, ancient souks, modern shopping malls and the capital's excellent Museum of Islamic Arts should provide high calibre relaxation. Slightly more adventurous types might visit the Al Maha sanctuary, home of the rare Arabian oryx, before camping among desert dunes. With crime nearly nonexistent, Qatar is also very safe."
Safe that is unless you are being worked to death building infrastructure for the World Cup.
The Guardian now reports:
"Dozens of Nepalese migrant labourers have died in Qatar in recent weeks and thousands more are enduring appalling labour abuses... raising serious questions about Qatar's preparations to host the 2022 World Cup. This summer, Nepalese workers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, many of them young men who had sudden heart attacks."
Back In 2010 the Guardian reported on the "inspired Qatari altruism" at the heart of the 2022 World Cup bid which will benefit people from poorer countries. Now it tells us about:
"Evidence of forced labour on a huge World Cup infrastructure project. Some Nepalese men have alleged that they have not been paid for months... Some workers on other sites say employers routinely confiscate passports and refuse to issue ID cards, in effect reducing them to the status of illegal aliens… Labourers say they have been denied access to free drinking water in the desert heat."
This might sound like the wonder of hindsight but these abuses should not be a huge surprise to the Guardian. The abuse of immigrant workers in Qatar is not a new thing and certainly predates reporter Louise Taylor's 2010 puff piece in which she said it would be a "failing" of FIFA not to award Qatar the World Cup. In fact, if Taylor had consulted the most recent Amnesty International report on Qatar (Amnesty International: Human Rights in the State of Qatar 2009) at the time she was writing her piece she would have read:
"Foreign migrant workers, who make up a large proportion of Qatar's workforce, continued to be exposed to, and inadequately protected against, abuses and exploitation by employers. Women migrant domestic workers were particularly at risk of exploitation and abuses such as beatings, rape and other sexual violence. Some 20,000 workers were reported to have fled from their employers in 2007 alone due to delays in or non-payment of their wages, excessive hours and poor working conditions."
Instead, Taylor and the Guardian ignored such publicly available and clearly problematic issues in favour of doing the Qatar bid team's PR for them.
OK, it's not exactly big news but it's easy to see why it made the local paper. After all, clouds that look (a bit) like Britain don't visit Coventry every day.
"I'd almost forgotten about it," Matt Bates told The Media Blog, after seeing the picture used on Saturday's Guardian (right).
Equally surprised may be Coventry Observer reader Amy Abrams who took the original photo.
After the long wait, the UK's newspapers have gone royal baby crazy with Tuesday's front pages. Though all are still visibly struggling with the same problem they've had all week - no baby yet.
And speaking of front pages, many on Twitter were quick to remind the papers that today's news also undermined some past front pages...
If the Royal Baby doesn't turn up soon one of our newspapers is going to do itself an injury in the attempt to fill the vacuum with increasingly inane baby-less royal baby coverage.
The front of today's Telegraph brings us "Duke, Duchess, baby ...surely not":
The Telegraph asks:
"A regal young couple take a walk in the sunshine at Kensington Gardens...proudly pushing their newborn baby. How did they keep the news from the millions awaiting the birth of the third in line to the throne?"
It then urges us to turn to page 21 to find out, where we are told they're actually look-a-likes.
Well I never.
The Mail and the Express meanwhile have got all excited about what the Mail calls "the strongest hint yet" that the baby will be here by the end of the week. Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall said:
"We are all just waiting by the telephone. We are hopeful that by the end of the week he or she will be here."
So the expectant grandparents hope the baby won't be too overdue? That's not a hint, that's just something expectant grandparents would say.
Apparently the due date was 13 July, so the fact is the baby will put in an appearance one way or another in the next week-and-a-half but the later it gets the more likely it is there will need to be some form of intervention such as induction. So all Camilla has really said is that her and Charles hope that's not necessary.
Which, when you think about it isn't even nearly news.