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.

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.

Which is it then?

The Sun's report on the already notorious "gang brawl" on the streets of Shoreditch:

"THIS was the shocking scene as rival gangs fought in the street — and no one called (sic) cops."

Really? The Daily Mail (which afaik first reported the fight) seems to have a completely different story:

"A spokesman for Scotland Yard said it had received numerous calls about the battle."

Not that the police seemed to have turned up in any case - although that's a different story.

Setting up "investigations" with only one possible outcome.

Occasionally, the Sun likes to take a break from attacking the "work shy" and on benefits just in print and decides to set-up a fallacious test to prove just what a bunch of layabouts those on benefits are. Previously it sent a hack to Rochdale, who quickly discovered that, surprise surprise, a tabloid newspaper journalist in his 40s and in a suit could get a job reasonably quickly. Throughout it didn't bother to outline what benefits those in Falinge in Rochdale were actually on; whether it was jobseeker's allowance, income support or incapacity benefit, but what do little things like that matter when you're attacking some of the most vulnerable, sorry I mean most bone idle in society?

This time the paper has been completely caught out by its own readers, which happily saves me the bother. Taking out advertisements in a local newspaper in Merthyr Tydfil, another "benefits blackspot", the paper offered an imaginary position for a cleaner in a new office development. The job required no experience (you don't say), paid the minimum wage and was for a minimum of 10 hours a week. Unsurprisingly, just one person bothered to apply for the job, a 22-year-old who wanted to combine it with going back to college, and whom most of the rest of the article is dedicated to.

The flaw in the Sun's plan to expose the population of Merthyr Tydfil as scroungers is quite apparent: only jobseeker's allowance for those under 24 pays less than the Sun's 10-hour minimum wage job would, at £46.85 a week. Considering that the rent on the most dingy bed-sit around is often in the region of £70 a week or more, it's hardly surprising that just one person took the Sun up on their remarkably generous offer. The only way in which the job might have been worth the while of someone on the dole taking it would be if they could combine it with another part time job, but unless they had another which they'd found at the same time, they'd still be out of pocket. The other two jobs which the Sun advertised were also minimum wage, but were for 20 hours and 35 hours respectively, and received 60 applications, as the paper freely admits. Hardly the sign of an area more willing to live on benefits than to work.

As I said, I didn't need to do any of the work here as the commenters on the story had already done it for me:

"Come on, get real,,,, what use is a 10-hour a week job to anybody?? Hardly gets you off the dole does it?? I like to work my living, but if I was unemployed I wouldn't apply for a job offering 10 hours a week, especially on minimum wage. You can't pay your rent/mortgage and live on that money, so the 'test' was totally unrealistic. Put an ad in for a good job, on good money and I think you'll find there's plenty of genuine job seekers."

Which they of course did.

"This was a 10 hour job on £5.56 an hour. That works out at £55.60 a week, yet you get £60 a week on JSA, plus benefits, are they surprised no-one applied, I wouldn't have either!"

Indeed.

"Clean toilets for £5 an hour?! I'm not surprised no one wanted the job, I wouldn't do it."

Quite.

Of course, this is all well and good when reading the paper online, but just how many of the Sun's 3 million readers check up on the reports they read in the paper on the site later is likely to be in the hundreds, if that. They've been given a completely false picture of a town on the basis of an "investigation" which doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. That, I'm pretty sure, counts as a particularly egregious lie and a slur on those unfortunate enough to be on benefit through no fault of their own.

Da-dumb, Da-dumb...

Saturday, 23 August 2008, a shark is photographed in the North Sea and The Sun says:

"Last summer, The Sun published a series of pictures showing what is believed to have been a Great White off the Cornish coast."

Today, 26 August 2008, a shark's tooth is found on a beach in Anglesey, North Wales and The Sun says:

"Last summer The Sun published pictures of what is believed to have been a Great White off the Cornish coast."

Does Rebekah Wade seriously expect her readers to ignore/forget that the only clear and visible evidence of a great white shark off the coast of Cornwall turned out to be a hoax?

Independent on Sunday- Shark!
Guardian - 'Cornish' shark photo was taken in South Africa
Daily Mail - Photograph of Cornwall's great white shark was a hoax
Telegraph - Cornwall Great White Shark photo 'a hoax'

In all the years that people have been fishing, swimming, surfing and searching in that area, no-one has submitted a crebible sighting of a great white shark off the southern coast of England. Or Wales. Ever.

That The Sun would gloss over their humiliation of last summer and suggest otherwise is typical of their arrogance.

And (dare one say it?) they should be thoroughly ashamed of playing on readers' fears.

-

UPDATE (27 Aug) - Prepare yourselves for an earth-shattering shock:

Practical Fishkeeping - North Wales Great White tooth came from necklace: However, Practical Fishkeeping contacted Douglas Herdson, Information Officer from the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth who was skeptical about the discovery. Herdson told Practical Fishkeeping: "I have only seen a photograph of the tooth in question. It is either a lower jaw tooth of a white shark Carcharodon carcharias, or a very good replica of one. "However, there is a clear hole drilled exactly in the centre of the base, so it would appear to have been lost from a necklace. "It is of course now illegal to import these teeth under the CITES agreement." Shark teeth and shark tooth necklaces are readily available on online auction sites and large examples, like this one, can change hands for £100 or more.


There goes any hope of their shifting the cartons of shark-related merchandise left over from last year's disappointment... and here comes a can that may or may not contain fat, juicy worms.

Almost makes one want to go strolling through recent auction listings, doesn't it?

-

UPDATE (02 Sep) - Even after this most recent humiliation, they're at it again!

"And in summer 2007 we published photos thought to show one of the maneaters near Cornwall."