A couple of weeks ago, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (here’s a video of the session).  During the session, he was asked about the practice of churnalism and after a bit of waffle, Dacre answered that churnalism does go on in other papers, but, ‘I would refute that charge to the Daily Mail.’

He was also asked about the practice of kicking off stories with misleading headlines that are contradicted in the story’s text. He answered, ‘I’d like to think this doesn’t happen in the Mail – I’m not going to hold my hand on my heart and say it doesn’t. It does happen in some areas of the media.’

This would be news to those who remember my post ‘How the Mail’s Home Affairs Editor fact checks press releases‘ from a couple of months ago, where the Mail had reproduced a press release from MigrationWatch and played about with it a bit to make it look more threatening.  There’s a better example from earlier this week.

This Monday’s front page headline in the Daily Express was ‘EACH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TO COST US £1MILLION‘.  The story had been churned from a MigrationWatch press release, which didn’t actually say that each illegal immigrant was to cost us a million pounds, but said that if there were an anmesty for illegal immigrants, then each family of four granted an amnesty would cost a million pounds if they all arrived at 25, worked for no more than minimum wage their whole lives, while claiming the maximum in tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit the whole time.  The housing benefit alone counts for about half the million.

MigrationWatch’s own headline is ‘Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Could Cost Taxpayers ‘Up to £1m’ Per Family‘, so you can see how it’s been twisted.  That’s some nice churning and misleading headline chicanery from the Express, but this is MailWatch.  What about the Mail?

Monday’s Mail reported the same story, and the current headline on the website is ‘Each illegal immigrant costs us £1m, says study as Government faces calls for amnesty‘.  Where the Express headline took MigrationWatch’s claim, removed the uncertainty and lied about the cost applying to each individual rather than each family of four, the Mail’s goes even further.  Looking at the Daily Mail’s headline gives the impression that every illegal immigrant currently in the country costs a million pounds each right now.

Usually, when an article has a misleading headline, the story beneath has a bit of clarification buried somewhere toward the bottom.  This one never clarifies that the cost is a potential for a family of four and not for each individual, although it hints at it with:

In London, where some 70 per cent of illegal immigrants are believed to live, the costs are even greater. As rents are considerably higher in the capital the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

So, Paul Dacre ‘refutes’ that churnalism goes on in the Mail, and would like to think the paper doesn’t lead with misleading headlines, and here’s proof that his ‘refutation’ is nonsense and the paper tells lies in headlines.  This story has been churned and exaggerated either from the Express’s coverage, or directly from the MigrationWatch press release.  ‘Daily Mail Reporter’ does appear to have at least seen the press release, since every quote attributed to Sir Andrew Green is lifted word for word from it.

Dacre also defended the Mail’s anti-MMR stories, coverage of the Max Mosely affair,  and publishing the name of the village that Josef Fritzl’s daughter was relocated to by saying that all these things had been reported elsewhere in the media first – a practice he’s ‘refuted’ even occurs in the Mail.

I shall be picking up from where my blog left off. Only with more maturity and actually backing up my arguments a bit more! Obviously, there is no point in me just replying “No, you’re an idiot”, so expect to see a bit of detailed analysis

Why are you doing this?

Because no-one else will! I want to help make the site even better than it already is, and hopefully get people to learn a bit more about the mindset of Mail readers.

Why have you chosen your specific beat and/or what skills and expertise can you bring to it?

Obviously, I’ve got the experience in picking apart readers’ letters, and I do miss my blog at times. I hope to be able to bring a balanced view here, pointing out when they’re right as well as when they’re wrong. I think it will also link in nicely with the other contributors’ articles, especially when there are big issues which get a lot of letters.

OK, that’s me!