Apology for 'Al-Qaeda Corrie threat' lie

On 9 December, the Sun claimed that a live episode of Coronation Street to be broadcast later that day was subject to a threat from Al-Qaeda:

The paper said:

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.

The article (an 'exclusive') went on to include several suspiciously vague quotes from suspiciously anonymous sources. It just didn't sound right. Nothing in the story convincingly backed up the 'Al-Qaeda threat' claim.

And within hours of the paper hitting the shelves, Supt. Jim Liggett of Greater Manchester Police confirmed the story was complete rubbish:

"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."

Inevitably, the episode went by without being disrupted by Al-Qaeda or anyone else, as many hours of live television do every day.

So it was unsurprising to see the Sun publish an apology for the story on 28 December:

Further to our article about increased security at Coronation Street's studios for their live 50th anniversary episode (December 9), we would like to make clear that while cast and crew were subject to full body searches, there was no specific threat from Al-Qaeda as we reported. We apologise for the misunderstanding and are happy to set the record straight.

Those two sentences appeared on page two. Given the prominence of the original, surely they should have appeared on the front page?

(The above combines two posts from Tabloid Watch)

Responding to deliberate obfuscation with deliberate obfuscation.

It's not often that you see the Murdoch press seriously rattled; it probably last happened when the Sun misjudged the public mood over its increasingly personal attacks on Gordon Brown. In that case the paper backed down and softened its coverage, but it didn't have that option when it came to the release last night of the Culture, Media and Sport committee's report into press standards, privacy and libel, which included the fresh allegations concerning the phone-hacking at the News of the World.

The options it did have were to either ignore it entirely, as it almost completely ignored the story when the allegations were running in the Guardian last year, or to come out fighting despite it not actually concerning the Sun itself in any capacity. It chose to do the latter, a decision which has probably deeply mystified its readers that wonder what on earth the paper is banging on about. It's not even as if the paper is still edited by Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade), a former editor of the NotW, but rather by Dominic Mohan, who has no connections with the Sun's sister paper whatsoever. It therefore makes you think it was a management decision, or indeed, even one that came directly from either Murdoch senior or junior themselves.

The most damning comments made by the parliamentary committee were that those giving evidence for News International had indulged in "deliberate obfuscation" while also suffering from "collective amnesia". What better way then to respond to such a slur than through, um, deliberate obfuscation, which is exactly what the Sun's editorial does?

TODAY is another dark day for Parliament.

MPs on the Labour-dominated Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have abandoned fairness and independence in pursuit of cheap political advantage.

The committee had an important opportunity to investigate crucial issues such as privacy law, libel tourism and the Madeleine McCann case.

Yet members wasted seven months - nearly half their time - on unfounded claims made by the Labour-supporting Guardian newspaper against News International, publisher of The Sun and the News of the World.

An important opportunity which the committee took, and looked at in great detail. The section on the News of the World phone-hacking takes up only half of the chapter on "press standards"; the rest of the report deals at length with all the subjects the Sun mentions, but maybe it's because the committee comes to conclusions which the Sun doesn't like that it dismisses them in such a way?

Shamefully, the committee colluded with The Guardian, giving it leaks and tip-offs. But not a shred of new evidence was found to support The Guardian's claims.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the committee colluded with the Guardian in this way? No. Was there however new evidence to support the Guardian's claims? Well, err, let's see what the report says in answer to exactly that allegation:

493. The Guardian articles did contain new information, in particular, concerning the payments to Gordon Taylor and others and the 'for Neville' email. This inquiry has subsequently revealed more facts, including the pay-offs made to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire and that they tapped the phones of the princes themselves. They also highlighted the fact that a culture undoubtedly did exist in the newsroom of News of the World and other newspapers at the time which at best turned a blind eye to illegal activities such as phone-hacking and blagging and at worst actively condoned it. We condemn this without reservation and believe that it has done substantial damage to the newspaper industry as a whole.

Thwarted, the committee has fallen back in its report on familiar Labour tactics of smear and innuendo.

Yes, tactics which this editorial and which News International as a whole regards as completely abhorrent. They would never smear anyone or rely on innuendo.

Labour MP Tom Watson pathetically used the report to try to link the Conservative Party with the bullying allegations that have shamed Downing St.

Oh, what's that? A smear perhaps? It's also not sour grapes on the Sun's part, having to recently pay a certain Tom Watson damages for libelling him, by err, claiming that he was involved or knew about Damian MacBride's smearing of Tory MPs. And in any case, why shouldn't we be able to compare the allegations made about Gordon Brown's behaviour in Downing Street with the err, proved allegations involving ex-Screws editor and now Tory spin doctor Andy Coulson's bullying of Matt Driscoll?

Parliamentary select committees are important but only work if MPs on them behave with fairness and honour.

Some on this committee have not. Its report is accordingly worthless.

The Sun talking about behaving with fairness and honour? Would someone please pass the sick bag?

(For more on the committee's report, see the post on my own blog.)

The Sun even lies about its birthdays

As reported here (and repeated here), The Sun started life as the Daily Herald in January 1911, as "a strike sheet for the London printing unions, then involved in an industrial dispute, to support their pleas for improved pay and conditions" (see: irony) before formalising its activity as a regular, daily newspaper from April 15th 1912 (pdf/source). It then went on to relaunch as an independent broadsheet titled The Sun on 15 September 1964. It was then bought by Rupert Murdoch and relaunched (again) in 17 November 1969 (more).

If these birthday/anniversary celebrations are really about 40 years of Rupert Murdoch, then by all means, let's wheel the old bastard out so we can stick some candles in him.

A copy of the front page of The Sun from 14 November, 1969. Click to enlarge. (Note the Orwellian announcement in the sidebar, promising some impending doubleplusgood news of the uppermost importance.)

A remixed version of the '40 years' television commercial that's been running in recent days

UPDATE - Do check out this tasty bit of audio hosted over at Chicken Yoghurt.

The Sun: supporting Our Boys by stealing their footage!

Another dismal leader in the Sun today, supporting the unwinnable war in Afghanistan to the hilt by claiming that leaving the country to the Taliban will obviously mean that the bombs killing "Our Boys" out there will quickly be coming here

More interesting though is a video clip which the Sun are predictably claiming as an exclusive, showing British troops in action near the Inkerman base in Helmand province and which they've slapped their logo on.

The Sun has in fact stolen the footage, as you might have expected. It was first posted on Liveleak on the 7th of July by someone called campbell. The Sun has simply cut it so that only the video and not the identifiers remain. Nice work, and doubtless whoever campbell is will be contacted so that he can paid for the paper using his video without permission.

The Sun - Tabloid Lies

Readers with a long memory may remember this story in the Sun from last March, which was repeated via numerous websites:

A MUSLIM bus driver told stunned passengers to get off so he could PRAY.

The white Islamic convert rolled out his prayer mat in the aisle and knelt on the floor facing Mecca.

Passengers watched in amazement as he held out his palms towards the sky, bowed his head and began to chant.

One, who filmed the man on his mobile phone, said: “He was clearly praying and chanting in Arabic.

Well, the Sun subsequently retracted it and has now had to pay out £30,000 on a libel claim, not to mention whatever they'll have to pay out in legal costs:

A London bus driver today accepted £30,000 in damages from the Sun over a claim that he ordered passengers off his vehicle so that he could pray.

The story in March last year caused Arunas Raulynaitis considerable distress and embarrassment, his solicitor, Stephen Loughrey, told Mr Justice Eady at the high court in London.

Loughrey said the newspaper now accepted that the allegations were entirely false and that Raulynaitis did not order any passengers off, there was no rucksack and no one refused to reboard because they feared he was a fanatic.

So now you know where our name comes from!

The Sun under investigation

For the record...

The Guardian:

The Press Complaints Commission is investigating a front-page story in the Sun newspaper that claimed Islamic extremists were targeting The Apprentice star Sir Alan Sugar.
...
It is understood that the Sun story originated from a news agency.

The Sun declined to comment on why it had removed the story from its website.

Via

Another invented benefits scandal.

On occasion, even I get blown away by the sheer sophistry of tabloid stories. Today's front page Sun splash is one of those:

"KILLERS and rapists can pick up as much state money as a victim’s grieving mum, The Sun can reveal.

Nearly 150 patients detained under the Mental Health Act receive up to £95-a-week incapacity benefit."

The clue here to this story being a concocted outrage is in "detained under the Mental Health Act". (Also worth noting is that despite the intro claiming that killers and rapists can receive incapacity benefit, the Sun doesn't deign to mention any that do, for the simple reason that none of those actually convicted of doing so can.)

As the article goes on, after long quotations from "sources" from high security hospitals:

"The patients claiming cash include some of Britain’s most violent people — but have NOT been convicted of a crime and are entitled to long-term sickness benefit."

Yep, that's right, none of these individuals which the Sun is claiming receive incapacity benefit have been actually convicted of a crime and sent to either Broadmoor, Rampton or Ashworth as a result - instead they're being detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act because they're either a danger to themselves or to others. They are therefore considered to be ordinary hospital in-patients, and can apply and receive normal benefits as everyone else can. You can argue that since they're being in effect cared for by the state that they should be paying for their board and food, but since the individual has little to no responsibility whatsoever for being unfortunate enough to develop either a mental illness or a personality disorder, it's hardly an open and shut case.

The actual real point of this invented so-called scandal though is to flag up another case that would genuinely be one:

"But a High Court case brought yesterday on legal aid by a convicted murderer and a rapist could allow handouts to virtually ALL 1,000 patients in top security hospitals.

The pair, now in Broadmoor after being jailed for life in the 1980s, are taking on the Department for Work and Pensions — and say they should be entitled to a “full range” of benefits.

That can include £60-a-week income support and £54-a-week pension — bringing a patient’s haul to £120."

Suddenly it all makes sense. In order to justify splashing this situation which might develop on the front page, the Sun's had to throw together information already in the public domain, call it "MAKING A KILLING" and in the process attempt to build its readers up into a familiar state of apoplexy. With this now done, the paper can defend itself if any complaints are made regarding its use of some familiar monsters:

"Broadmoor houses Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe. Rampton is home to baby killer Beverley Allitt.

Another secure hospital, Ashworth on Merseyside, is where Moors child murderer Ian Brady is held. None of those currently gets benefit."

All three of course have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, hence why they cannot apply for benefit. All three though are pictured as though they're just waiting to fill their boots; after all, why not kill someone, pretend you're insane and get incapacity benefit? The streets will shortly be littered with corpses!

The cynicism behind this really is quite breathtaking. After a week in which the neoliberal economic orthodoxy which the Sun has long espoused has been shown to be rotten to its very core, the paper's still more concerned with demonising individuals not convicted of any crime for daring to claim £95 a week. Take the Sun's claims at face value, with 150 in-patients receiving that all year-round, and it means it costs the taxpayer a whopping £741,000 a year, or the tiniest drop in an immense ocean. This is considered to be more important than anything else today, and in effect, it is. The paper knows full well this was going to go down a storm, and the comments on the story, many getting the impression that Sutcliffe and others are already getting incapacity benefit show it.

Even worse is the Sun's leader:

"BENEFIT handouts to psychopaths responsible for horrific crimes are an outrage.

It may be legal, through a loophole in welfare laws. But it is morally repugnant."

Except that no one actually convicted of a crime is receiving benefit, as the story makes clear. But why even bother telling the truth? The article itself barely bothers.

"A Sun investigation reveals how some of our most dangerous murderers and rapists are claiming £85 weekly incapacity benefit."

Only it can't name a single one which is. Whoever wrote this is too lazy to even get the actual sum in question right.

"Now two Broadmoor patients are claiming even more benefits, taking their weekly income to around £120."

Another bare-faced lie as the article makes clear. They are bringing a case; they are not claiming it yet, nor is it likely they will win.

"Under the law, secure hospital patients qualify for handouts as “long-term sick”.

We are sick, too, if we allow this to continue."

Some might suggest that individuals that repeatedly lie and distort for their own short-term gain are also suffering from personality disorders; they though it seems will continue be remunerated on a far greater scale than anyone currently residing in a hospital.


P.S.
And some other bloggers wonder whether sites such as this are necessary and think it rare that the tabloids "flat-out" lie.

Ebeneezer Goode

There's a nice scare-mongering report in the Sun today.

You may not be aware of it, but the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has got around to reviewing the status of Ecstasy (see the various reports on the Transform blog for background information).

The Sun claims that the government is planning to downgrade E from a Class A to a Class B drug. This is a complete lie! All the Council is doing is having a look at the evidence regarding the old Disco Biccies to see whether it is appropriate for it to fall within the Class A guidelines. It will then prepare a report on this which will be submitted to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.

The Sun's report quotes the Tory spokesperson Ann Widdecome who makes the moronic claim that the government should have learned its lesson regarding the cannabis debacle, stating that they had to reverse their decision to downgrade it. She is completely wrong. Until last May, the government had not overruled the Council, but after it prepared another report on Cannabis - again stating that it should have remained a Class C drug, due to it being low risk and there being a significant drop in its usage since it was downgraded - the government decided to appease the tabloids and put it back to a Class B, completely ignoring its own expert's report. The Sun doesn't challenge her at all, instead repeating her claims as fact. Widdecome also maintains that we have to "Send a message" about its use. Again the Sun doesn't challenge her, seemingly supporting the "Nanny State"...

The Sun had already nailed its colours to the mast back in May is it slated the head of the Council (Prof. David Nutt, who the Sun calls the UK's "Drugs Czar") for daring to even suggest that they should look at the evidence regarding E's status and whether the current status can be justified by any empirical evidence.

One trick the Sun misses in its coverage this time around is not to bring up the name of Leah Betts who died back in 1995 after taking a contaminated tablet. Back in May the Sun infers that she died due to the tablet itself. However, at an inquest it was determined that she actually died due to drinking too much water: the extraordinary volume of 7 litres in 90 minutes.

The Council is due to publish its report sometime next year. I can already guess how the Sun will cover it...

On the plus side, the majority of the Sun's readers are opposed to its take on the matter, for the reasons given above.

The lies surrounding the reporting

Virginia Wheeler was sent by the Sun to report Gary Glitters return home.

Virginia Wheeler of The Sun:

I SHUDDERED as creepy Gary Glitter stroked my arm and called me “sweetie” yesterday.

The pop pervert sat by me on a flight from Ho Chi Minh City to Bangkok after being released from a Vietnamese jail.

Paedophile Glitter, who insisted he was heading back to Britain, ran a hand along my arm and said: “Tell me, sweetie, what is the weather like in England? I’m not used to the cold any more. I’ve got so used to the heat in Asia.”

Oh. Did he, now? Paul Gadd said that to you, Virginia?

I copied the following from the scan below because it needs to appear in searches. I can be vindictive like that sometimes.

Private Eye, Issue 1218:

A SENSATIONAL scoop for Sun hack Virginia Wheeler on August 20: "WORLD EXCLUSIVE. Perv Glitter is free and tells the Sun:I'm Coming Home."
Wheeler described how she "shuddered as creepy Gary Glitter stroked my arm and called me 'sweetie' yesterday" but nobly endured his attentions in the interests of a world exclusive. And it was well worth it: the peripatetic paedo revealed his plans to resume a music career and his fears that the English weather might seem a little chilly after three years in a Vietnamese jail.
Where did this encounter between beauty and the beast occur? "The pop pervert sat beside me on a flight from Ho Chi Minh City to Bangkok," Wheeler claimed. Strange, then, that in the accompanying photos of Glitter on the plain from Vietnam to Thailand there was no sign of Wheeler in the next seat.
She was, in fact, sitting in the front row of business class while Glitter was much further back. About 10 minutes before landing, the crew moved him forward to a vacant t seat so he could make a quick getaway from the press posse. He was put three rows behind Wheeler - still quite a distance from which to fondle her arm. None of the hacks on the plane saw him touch her or speak to her at all.
Even so, Wheeler filed her "world exclusive" to Wapping. After reading what Glitter himself had allegedly told her - "I'm so glad to be going back to England...It's where my heart is and where my family are. I can't wait to see them" - the newsdesk ordered her to get on the Bangkok-to-London flight without delay as he was sure to be on it. While other hacks waited to see what happened, Wheeler duly checked in and boarded. Alas! Glitter stayed in Bangkok, feigning illness and trying desperately trying to avoid going anywhere near England.
The Sun hastily recruited a freelance to cover the ensuing shenanigans while Wheeler commenced her 12-hour flight back to Blighty.