The Media Blog

2012: The Year in front pages

2012 has been an eventful year in news and media and one captured brilliantly by some inspiring, provocative and hard-hitting front-pages. 

The most visually stunning front pages of the year were produced by The Times during the Olympics with a series of wraparound front and back pages, the first of which was this shot on the very first morning of the Games. 

Once the Games began all eyes were on Team GB and once the gold medals started flowing, Bradley Wiggins provided The Times with an image worthy of its golden masthead:

The highlight of the Olympics for many was 'Super Saturday' when Mo Farah, Greg Rutherford and the face of the London games, Jessica Ennis struck gold in the Olympic stadium. The Independent on Sunday perfectly captured the iconic nature of Ennis's triumph: 

Mo Farah also won gold on Super Saturday and when he completed his incredible double of the 5,000m and 10,000m the Sunday Times rose to the occasion, aided as in all these cases by stunning photography:

The Olympic Games were followed by the most successful Paralympic Games ever which started with a jaw-dropping opening ceremony and delivered some of the most inspiring performances of an unrivalled sporting year. Across the board the newspapers all gave the Paralympics pride of place on their front pages:

One of the most poignant front pages of the year was produced by The Mirror following the publication of the Hillsborough Report on 12 September. The report confirmed a major police cover-up had attempted to falsely blame the victims for the stadium disaster and The Sun newspaper had played a major part in spreading malicious lies. The Mirror on 13 September referenced The Sun's infamous and entirely false 'The Truth' headline for its own front page:

It has not been a good year for public inquiries or the strained relationships between the media, the police and the government. At the heart of that love-hate-triangle was the Leveson Report which finally published its recommendations, only for David Cameron to reject them before he had even had time to read them. The Independent made clear its thoughts on the ultimate futility of Leveson's efforts:

The need for the Leveson Inquiry was cited often and vociferously during some of the year's more controversial media stories, including when The Sun decided to publish naked pictures of Prince Harry cavorting behind closed doors in a Las Vegas hotel suite. The publication of the actual photos followed a front page recreation of Harry's naked cavorting by The Sun using a reporter and an intern.

The papers were united in their over-the-top coverage of news that Kate Middleton was pregnant. It brought to an end months of intrusive speculation by the papers (see: Press speculation, a royal baby and a link to Leveson). The Sun marked the occasion with a trademark pun:

A major story throughout 2012 was the issue of tax avoidance - from multinational companies such as Starbucks to individuals such as Jimmy Carr who The Times exposed in June:
Another far more grave story throughout the year has been the harrowing conflict and killing in Syria. The Independent on Sunday's stark front page warned readers of the gruesome images inside the paper while spelling out the horror of the Houla massacre: 
The year also saw the victory of President Barack Obama in the US election, seeing off the challenge of Mitt Romney to secure four more years in the White House. The Times marked the occasion with a return of the wraparound front page:

A tragic story at the end of the year saw the latest gun massacre in a US school. The Independent on Sunday again ran a very stark, sombre front page, telling the heartbreaking story of a heroic teacher who gave her life to protect her students: 

Media Hero and Villain of 2012 revealed

The votes have been counted and it's time to announce the annual award of the Media Blog's Media Hero and Villain of the Year.

In the Media Villain category there was a clear winner, polling more than a third of the total vote, after more than 1,900 votes.

Mackenzie and the lies he spread: This year he claimed he deserved an apology and moaned about his public vilification.

The award goes to Kelvin Mackenzie for his continued failure to accept responsibility for The Sun's lies about Hillsborough and his claims this year that he was a victim and deserved some justice after years of "personal vilification".

The publication of the Hillsborough Report in September proved beyond doubt that a police cover-up had attempted to blame fans for the tragedy.

It also proved that The Sun, under Mackenzie, had spread malicious lies about the victims under a headline claiming them to be 'The Truth'. Mackenzie's staggering response was to demand an apology - for himself - from South Yorkshire Police. In a jaw dropping piece in The Spectator, Mackenzie also claimed Liverpool fans had unfairly picked on him and complained that members of the public had called him a "liar". 

The police have quite rightly told Mackenzie he will not be getting any apology for the lies his paper told. He'll have to make do with the Media Villain of the Year Award instead.

Media Hero

In the Media Hero category it was a much more closely contested affair. For much of the voting period two of the nominees were neck-and-neck and the lead changed a number of times. However, there can be only one winner and when voting closed at midnight on 30 December, the BBC had forged a narrow lead for its outstanding round-the-clock coverage of the London 2012 Olympics across television, radio, mobile, tablet, social media and online. 

The BBC's Olympics coverage was not only a triumph for technology and multi-platform programming but it also created a feelgood factor around the country.

While that owed much to the performances of our Olympians, you only had to read the complaints in the US about broadcaster NBC to realise we were fortunate to have the BBC's unrivalled dedication to covering every bronze, silver and gold medal won by Team GB as it happened. NBC took a leaf out of the 1970s broadcasters handbook and denied fans live coverage of events in favour of highlights packages at times which better suited sponsors - even if it happened to be hours after the results were known. 

The BBC polled 23.8% of the votes, beating Private Eye into second place (21.1%). It should also be noted that the undoubted star of the BBC's presentation team, Clare Balding, took third place overall (18%) for her outstanding work at both the Olympics and the Paralympics.

Full results:

Media Villain of the Year
1st. Kelvin Mackenzie - 37.5%
2nd. The Daily Mail - 30.1%
3rd. Piers Morgan - 15%
4th. David Cameron - 11.5%
5th. BBC Newsnight - 5.9%

Media Hero of the Year
1st. BBC Sport (Olympics) - 23.8%
2nd. Private Eye - 21.1%
3rd. Clare Balding - 18%
4th. Channel 4 Paralympics - 10.2% 
5th. Team #Twitterjoketrial - 10.1%
6th. Jon Hill and The Times design team - 10%
7th. Hugh Grant - 6.8%

Express turns a blind eye to Channel 5 repeats

Earlier this month The Express wrote about "the frustration felt by many licence fee payers at the record number of repeats showing on television".

The Express went on to tell us:

"Christmas viewers will be deluged with almost 100 hours of repeats. A Sunday Express study of the 2012 schedules found that a staggering level of old series and re-run films will be broadcast by the three main channels over Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day..."

There is no doubt a good reason why The Express chose to focus on "the three main channels" and it may have something to do with the repeat-heavy festive schedule of Channel 5, which is also owned by Express proprietor Richard Desmond.

For example, between 8am on Christmas Day and 1am on Boxing Day, Channel 5 has less than 90 minutes of first-time programming.

From 8am Channel 5 has more than five hours given over to the latest dusting off of Gone With The Wind, followed by over four hours of Ben Hur, taking us neatly up to 5.25pm when they have the premiere of a TV movie called The Santa Incident.

The evening is then given over to repeats of programmes about haulage company Eddie Stobart.

No, really.

In fact, Eddie Stobart's Christmas Cracker is not only a repeat but it is due to be repeated three times on Channel 5 over the Christmas week alone, including consectuve days on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

Eddie Stobart's Trucks, Trailers and Tinsel is also a repeat, being shown again on Thursday, as is Eddie Stobart's Christmas Delivery.

All of these repeats are then topped off with a three-hour repeat of clips show Greatest Christmas TV Moments which in effect is a repeat of much-repeated moments from popularly-repeated TV repeats.

Daily Mail: Moral crusade or monopoly?

The Daily Mail this week claimed victory in its fight against internet porn.

"Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today... Mr Cameron's intervention follows a concerted campaign for an automatic block by this newspaper..." 

And the Mail has been celebrating ever since with a veritable fleshplosion of "nude", "topless", "see-through" and "bikini shoot" photo splashes:

Of course the Mail is allowed to publish such content for kids to enjoy because when it hasn't been lobbying David Cameron to regulate the internet it's been lobbying David Cameron not to regulate the media and its own website. 

Moral crusade? It seems more likely the Mail wants just a monopoly on such things.

They now just have to hope the filters they've campaigned for don't block the Mail Online.

Definitely not a pregnancy story...

Remember when Martin Clarke, editor of the Mail Online, told the Leveson Inquiry that the Mail never writes pregnancy stories unless the person involved has confirmed it?

"...there are things that we can't write, pregnancy stories, for instance. The PCC says that we're not allowed to say somebody's pregnant unless they've confirmed it..."

Obviously that doesn't cover speculating about it though, such as this in-no-way intrusive story about Kate Moss today:

The Mail isn't saying Moss is pregnant of course. That would be against the watertight rules of the media's self-regulatory body. They are just speculating that she might be. And claiming she has the early signs of a baby bump, as captured by the long lens photographers stalking her on holiday.

So that's all OK.

Who would make money from social media photos?

A clearly incredulous Daily Mail has reported:

"A popular photo-sharing website owned by Facebook has told users it now owns the rights to their pictures... Instagram will not give any warning or payment before cashing in on the images posted on its site. It means pictures by children as young as 13 could be sold to advertisers."

Fans of the Daily Mail may need a minute or two to compose themselves at this point. Because the Daily Mail has regularly been accused of setting a high benchmark for scraping photos off social networks and using them without permission.

The Mail goes on to point out one of the more outrageous details:

"Instagram says users must be at least 13 years old to sign up for the service. But the new rules assume that when an underage teenager signs up, a parent or guardian is aware that their child's image, username and photos might be used in adverts."

Earlier this year the Leveson Inquiry heard how the Press Complaints Commission had apparently forced the Daily Mail to remove photos of an 11-year-old boy it had posthumously scraped from Facebook against the wishes of his parents.

Liz Jones: Gold medalists are "butch" and "chunky"

More than 14 million people tuned in to the BBC's Sports Personality Of The Year on Sunday night. It was a celebration of a fantastic summer of Olympic and Paralympic achievement. We once again applauded the athletes who had given us so much to enjoy through their achievements on the track, in the pool, in the velodrome, on the water and on the road.

Who could possibly have an unkind word to say about these heroes to many?

Liz Jones, of course, the Daily Mail's very own twisted knot of hatred who had clearly sharpened her witches-piss-flavoured pencil of spite especially for the women who attended the event.

Jones, clearly incensed that women have had the audacity to achieve something more lauded than pouring self-loathing-scented bile onto the pages of a tabloid newspaper, began:

"There's no doubt that athletes' bodies look spectacular in teeny Lycra shorts and bra tops, but unfortunately drape them in anything remotely 'fashion' ...and it just doesn't do them justice... From the over-developed shoulders to the muscular thighs, it tends to look slightly butch and uncomfortable.

"Take Rebecca Adlington, who in a swimsuit is as sleek as an otter, and who last night wore a black plunging gown. She probably has zero body fat, but still managed to look chunky..."

Throughout this piece, Jones tries to hide her snide asides behind all sorts of hollow caveats. She tells us these women are "wonderful" and "pretty". She reminds us how hopeless she would be at the sports at which they excel. But at no point does she explain why "wonderful" people deserve to have their bodies and their clothes rubbished - or even judged.

"...the women look completely out of their comfort zone when dressing up, perhaps not surprising when they often spend seven hours a day sweating, or immersed in water. They are used to trainers, not heels."

How magnanimous.

"...I always dreamed of a rower's body, but Katherine Grainger looked rather apologetic in a monochrome day dress with hideous shoes...

"[Jessica Ennis's] red gown showed off breasts we never knew she had on the running track, although her waist was a little boxy..."

"...Victoria Pendleton played it safe in a black dress that was more something you would wear to the office, not an awards do... and the shoes were just awful!

The most ridiculous caveat of all is...

"But ultimately, who cares if they don't look like they've stepped off the pages of Vogue...

Liz Jones does. Hence the spiteful article. Though the rest of us are left guessing as to why.

Of course, nobody has to appear in Vogue to prove their worth. But just to prove Jones is not only nasty and irrational but also fundamentally wrong, here is Victoria Pendleton on the pages of Vogue... and again. And Jess Ennis.

Don't believe everything a journalist tells you

Last week, Roy Greenslade wrote a blog post for The Guardian, poo-pooing a scoop by The Telegraph which claimed, among other things, James Harding was about to depart his role as editor of The Times: 

The Daily Telegraph was on the money with its story about News International's chief executive, Tom Mockridge, deciding to resign... But note another sentence in the Telegraph report: Mockridge's "departure is part of a major shake-up which could also see the departure of James Harding, editor of The Times."

Wow! Can it really be so? Harding says not. After I texted him to ask, he replied: "It isn't so."

Today we hear Harding has indeed resigned. 

Well, if you can't trust the editor of a rival paper to stand up your story for you, who can you trust?

Infographics: Make sure they add up

Infographics are all the rage these days and can be an excellent way to make information easily digestible... providing you've got the information right. Otherwise they're little more than clip art.

Case in point, Channel 4 News has published an infographic to illustrate the fact Argentinian footballer Lionel Messi has broken Gerd Müller's 40 year old goal scoring record of 85 goals in a calendar year. 

The infographic shows how Messi's 86 goals compare to Müller's 85. Or does it... a quick bit of adding up would have revealed the goals on the left add up to just 73 and the goals on the right add up to 84:

It's also been pointed out that Müller did not score 13 goals at Euro 72, but rather in all international games that season. He also troubled the goal once in a European Cup Winners Cup match and only scored 12 in the European Cup. If you're interested, Four Four Two have a more accurate version for a story which really was crying out for a good infographic.

Correction... how hard can it be?

Here's an ironic gem from Canada's Toronto Sun (spotted and shared on Twitter by Steve Lladurantaye)...

No Twitter parody, no story...?

A monkey in a winter coat became an internet sensation yesterday after being picked up in the car park of an Ikea store in Canada. 

"It must be somebody’s pet because he was wearing a jacket," [an] Ikea spokesperson said... referring to the monkey, which was wearing a miniature, brown, shearling-type jacket.

Such quirky animal stories have been a staple of the news for many years but it was a detail beyond the style of coat which caught the eye of some readers.

Reporting the story, the Canadian Broadcaster CBC wrote: 

"The incident prompted the creation of at least two parody accounts on Twitter."

Are we going to judge events now by the number or quality of parody accounts they spark on Twitter. The number of 'royal babies' tweeting from inside Kate Middleton, suggests it may not be an altogether flawed measure.

Royal Baby: Seven more months of filler?

Have you heard, Kate Middleton is pregnant?

Of course you have. Beyond that, there's not really much to report on this story. She's a bit poorly with it, but that's not really any of our business.

Yet the media has managed to milk thousands of column inches out of the story already - from detailed information about morning sickness to informing readers what it means for the order of succession and the baby's likely impact on the UK economy. 

But once the newsdesks hit the bottom of the barrel they didn't stop scraping there - from speculating that it might be twins to speculating what the name might be to speculating what impact Kate's choice of pram will have on global buggy sales.

And that's far from the worst of it.

The Telegraph has set its stall out early as the go-to place for royal baby stories you can't quite believe anybody had to write.

Spare a thought for The Telegraph's Chief Reporter Gordon Rayner who has already written stories such as Bookies slash odds on twins, Could it be twins for Kate? and Duke faces big career decisions. But his standout piece of filler so far has been this effort:

In this article, Rayner, who was part of the Telegraph's award winning investigations team that blew open the expenses scandal, writes:

"From the shape of a mother's baby bump to food cravings during pregnancy, the supposed tell-tale signs of a baby's sex have been debated for thousands of years. 

"But according to cold statistical analysis, the Duchess of Cambridge is most likely to give birth to a girl who will grow to be 5ft 10ins tall. Studies of mothers' dietary habits, health during pregnancy and the father's occupation all suggest the odds are on the Duchess giving birth to a princess."

How long before Raynor is reporting on what the cloud formations above Buckingham Palace might tell us about the unborn child?

But he's not alone in having to fill acres of white space. The Guardian has also been at it with this unlikely hard-luck story:

 

The Guardian reports:

"Moving house with a newborn, as many a parent knows, is not ideal, but it could be the prospect facing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The couple are due to take up residence in a refurbished Apartment 1a at Kensington Palace next summer – around the same time the duchess is expecting to produce a future king or queen."

It's hard to imagine that tale of hardship striking much of a chord with anybody else who has had to move house with a young child in tow. 

The tabloids aren't to be outdone. It looks like the Daily Mail is willing not only to report its own thoughts and opinions on the royal baby but to also tell us every time anybody else offers a thought about it... even if you don't know who that person is (Snooki? Answers on a postcard):

Presumably the "(yes really)" incredulity was meant as a private joke between the sub-editor and the journalist who wrote this story.

(I say 'story' but you know what I mean.) 

However, leading the way so far in the Royal Baby Filler Stakes, is this effort from The Mirror:

That's right, the royal baby might live to be 87. 

There are seven more months of this to come.

Press speculation, a royal baby and a link to Leveson

As any parent or expectant parent knows, picking the moment to announce the news of a pregnancy is an emotional and very personal decision. Fortunately it is one most people get to make on their own terms.

But not Kate Middleton whose own baby news has become public property overnight, despite it being at an early stage. 

According to The Telegraph:

"The Duke and Duchess were forced to go public with the news much earlier than intended after the 30-year-old Duchess was admitted to hospital..."

They were "forced to go public". The implication being the story was about to get out, whether they liked it or not.

After all, Princess Kate rushed to hospital after months of being subjected to endless rumours, speculation and 'bumpwatch' innuendo. That wasn't going to go unnoticed or uncommented upon.

So who has been fuelling the speculation? Who was to blame for the inevitable pressure on the couple to "go public" earlier than they wanted?

The Telegraph tells us:

"Royal aides said the decision to go public "was very much driven by the Duke and Duchess", who were aware that it would be impossible to keep the news a secret in the age of Twitter."

Twitter. That's right.

In a separate article, The Telegraph tells us:

"Their decision comes amid growing concern that the internet appears beyond the reach of regulation. Lord Justice Leveson concluded it was an "ethical vacuum" which the press should seek to rise above.

"The Duchess's pregnancy has been the subject of fevered speculation on the internet ever since the couple married. The British press, by contrast, did not repeat the rumours out of respect for the couple's privacy."

Although it has been suggested the Leveson Inquiry has caused a little selective memory loss across the UK's newspapers, The Telegraph really does seem convinced. Forget anything you think you might have heard to the contrary.

So back in July 2011 when The Telegraph reported "Royal wedding cake sparks baby rumours" that wasn't fuelling "fevered speculation". And in April this year when The Telegraph told us the couple looked "broody" and "every inch the doting parents" as "they cooed over a couple's baby", they weren't suggesting William and Kate might be trying for a family of their own.

Of course The Telegraph admits it isn't alone. It claims the whole "British press" was avoiding such rumours.

So let's not dwell on the 11 November 2011 story from The Daily Star which told us:

"Prince William and his wife Kate are moving into a new royal family-sized home, fuelling  rumours she is pregnant..."

That must just have been the bloody internet again. Like the previous week, when The Daily Star told us:

"...baby rumours were sparked when Kate passed up the chance to eat peanut paste when the couple visited an aid centre in Denmark."

Can any of us really say how we'd react when given the chance to eat peanut paste at a Danish aid centre?

But not all speculation was based on theories revolving around peanut paste. The very same week, the Daily Mail, brought us this gem:

"Maybe she was just feeling a bit peckish – but the Duchess of Cambridge has fuelled rumours that she may be pregnant by repeatedly touching her stomach during a Royal visit."

Back in September, The Daily Mail spotted Kate drinking water and was inspired to comment:

"...it seems the Royal couple decided to have a dry night and forgo the champagne. But their clinking of glasses topped with water, may fuel speculation that if Kate is not already pregnant, she and William might be trying for a baby..."

And just last week the Daily Mail again told us:

"The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are no stranger to accepting gifts from ...well-wishers... but Prince William accepted a gift that is likely to spark rumours that the couple could be hearing the pitter patter of tiny royal feet...in the near future - a babygro."

The Mirror said this very same incident sparked "royal baby fever". Which must have been Twitter's fault again. However, by that point - it has since transpired - the speculation was right, albeit very early days. But that doesn't mean the "fevered speculation" has to end. Just look at the front page headline The Telegraph has run with today (...though Twitter probably made them do it, of course).

So there you have it. The British press did nothing to fuel "fevered speculation". It was all the internet's fault.

Got that Mr Leveson?