Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

How the Mail does it

As ever, I find myself standing up and applauding the Mail. What a wonderful use of words. What beautiful skills. If it weren't for anything other than creating an entirely false impression, I'd even admire it.

But no. I can't admire it. It is promoting an agenda as vile and loathsome as those men who have been convicted of terrorism offences. It is an agenda of hatred. It is an agenda of terror. It is an agenda to terrorise the public by creating a false impression of the risks to them. Why? To sell a few papers. To demonise a few Muslims. To make white middle-class people shit themselves at the breakfast table. And the facts? The facts don't matter; what really matters is the impression you can create with only scarce reference to the facts.

Who, then, is the bigger terrorising influence? The amateur killer with the liquid bomb or the man at the computer, broadcasting to thousands and thousands of readers who trust him? Which man can create a bigger sense of fear? Which man can create real panic? Which one wields the power, and with it the responsibility that the other man has none of?

Firstly, the facts. Three men have been found guilty of conspiracy to murder with explosives. Seven men (including those three) admitted conspiring to cause a public nuisance. Another man was cleared of all charges. No-one - not a single one of them - has been convicted of conspiring to cause explosions on an airliner, the jury having failed to reach a verdict on those charges.

This last bit becomes important in particular when you remember what happened during the trial. I criticised the BBC at the time for labelling the trial as AIRLINE TERROR PLOT when it was a point of contention whether it was anything of the sort. As it turns out, a jury of these men's peers decided, after weeks in court and fully days of deliberation, that this was not something that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the case.

However, that was small potatoes compared with the Mail, which went with

PLOT TO BLOW SEVEN PLANES OUT OF THE SKY

as its front-page splash and the Express, which went with

TERROR GANG'S PLOT TO BLOW UP SEVEN PLANES OVER ATLANTIC

all of which made it appear that there was no debate about there being a terror plot to blow up planes. However, a jury has decided otherwise. Yes, there was a plot, and three men definitely did intend to kill people with explosives. But the jury has not convicted these men of plotting to blow up planes over the Atlantic. How could the Mail and Express have got it so wrong? Why did they get it wrong?

Please, spare me the faux-naif meandering that they were simply presenting one side of a court case. If they had intended to do so in a responsible way, they would have made it clear that the plot to blow up planes was a contentious issue. They decided not to. Why?

At least the Mail didn't allow comments on an ongoing court case. The Express did. Comments like these:

Allah the merciless again. Deport the lot of them.

Play them at they're own game. Put pictures of pigs everwhere including the floors at the airports and they'll keep well away

evil people, brainwashing scum of the earth, hang them or fry them!!
also how the hell do we know a good one from a bad one?

WHAT A PEACEFUL COUNTRY WE ONCE HAD
And then our politicians allowed filth like this to live amongst us.

Take a good, hard look at that. Comments during a trial like that. Still think the Express is worthy of the title 'newspaper'? Anyone?

The BBC tell the story of the men's convictions today like this. Most of us can recognise the need to get the facts into a story early on, especially when you're telling the story for the first time. So let's see how they do it:

Three men have been found guilty of a massive terrorist conspiracy to murder involving home-made bombs.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain's convictions follow a huge terrorism inquiry, which led to sweeping airport restrictions.
The three, and a further five men, were not convicted on charges of plotting to bomb transatlantic airliners.

Fairly crisp analysis there. Fancy a quick compare and contrast with the Mail? OK. How long do you think it will be before they mention that no-one was convicted of plotting to blow up airliners? A couple of paragraphs in?

Guilty: British Muslim terror gang 'who plotted to kill hundreds in bombing campaign'

OK. I've spoken before about the Mail's obsession with 'British Muslims' vis-a-vis this case, but that is indeed what these men are.

A gang of British-born Muslims were convicted yesterday of plotting a British 9/11 by blowing up liquid bombs disguised as soft drinks.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain were accused of planning horrific attacks on planes, power stations, oil refineries and airports in their warped desire to kill thousands.
Disturbing links have emerged between the group and a secretive Muslim sect which is lobbying to build Europe's biggest mosque in the shadow of the London 2012 Olympic site.

So that's 3 paragraphs in, and no mention that these men were not found guilty of blowing up planes. But look at what's there instead: fearmongering. The Mail decides it's more important to talk about what the men were charged with than what they were convicted of - why might that be? Why on earth is that more important than what they are convicted of? Does this smack of a hasty re-write, or is something else going on? I imagine the Mail would have had a story ready for the eventuality of these men being convicted of the plot against airliners, and it's certainly possible that this could be the result of a poor piece of editing on that. Fair enough. Possibly.

What's certain, though, is how the fearmongering has been ramped up: linking convicted terrorists with people who have not been convicted of anything; inviting readers to put two and two together; raising by implication the spectre of terrorism at the 2012 Olympics, without any evidence to back it up whatsoever.

OK, so where is the part about the men not being convicted of plotting to blow up an airliner? Surely we'll see that soon, won't we?

Tablighi Jamaat is an ultra-orthodox movement which has its UK base in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, the home of 7/7 ringleader Mohammed Siddique Khan.
Both he and fellow 7/7 bomber Shezhad Tanweer were thought to attend the mosque. Richard Reid, the shoebomber who tried to blow up a flight to America, also attended mosques run by the group.
The operation to thwart Ali, Sarwar and Hussain is one of the largest ever carried out by Scotland Yard and has cost more than £20million.
The three men planned to fill 500ml Lucozade and Oasis bottles with a homemade fluid concocted from hydrogen peroxide - commonly used as hair bleach - and dyed the same colour as the drink, which would have passed undetected through security scanners.
When the plot was smashed in August 2006 it triggered chaos at airports as a ban on liquid containers bigger than 100ml was brought in overnight. The ban is still in force today.

We're now 8 paragraphs in. No mention of that. Instead, there is even more mention of the charges which were not proven, more of an implication that these were the charges that these men were convicted of - linking the men with Richard Reid, who definitely did want to blow up an airliner; mentioning that the bottles 'would have passed through security scanners' as if that in itself is evidence that that is exactly what was intended for the bottles, despite the jury deciding not to convict the men of this. The Mail is deciding it knows what happened better than the jury, which is their right. But where is the detail about the facts of the convictions?

Security services became aware of the plot in May 2006 and a massive surveillance operation began. Prosecutors alleged Ali, Sarwar and Hussain plotted to blow up seven planes bound from Heathrow to cities in the U.S. and Canada.
It was also claimed that the bombers talked of taking their wives and children on board planes.
At least 2,000 passengers and crew would have perished and thousands more could have died if the planes had been flying over land.
Both Ali and Hussain made 'martyrdom' suicide videos in which Ali ranted of his desire to 'scatter the body parts' of non-believers while Hussain wished he could 'do this again and again'.
Sarwar was not destined to die in the plot - he planned to rebuild the terror cell for a second wave of terror attacks.
His targets included Canary Wharf, the Greenwich Foot Tunnel under the Thames and nuclear power stations.

14 paragraphs in and still no mention. Once again, the concentration is on what was alleged rather than what the jury decided and what is therefore the verdict in law. Once again, the concentration on the planes, even though this is not the offence for which the men were convicted. Why might that be? Does it scupper the Mail's hours of research, and is therefore deemed to be rather a pesky distraction from the business of telling the story the Mail wanted to be told, as opposed to the story of what actually happened?

You might say I'm just splitting hairs. In some ways, I am. These men who were convicted of being terrorists were indeed terrorists. Does it matter exactly what they were convicted of, if they intended to kill? Well, from the point of view of accuracy, surely it does - doesn't it? Or doesn't it? Can we just say these men planned to blow up planes, even though a jury doesn't agree? Do we just press on with what we want to say anyway? Shall we say they intended to blow up orphanages, or incubators, or schools, or anything? Does it matter? Does it matter at all whether we get it right or wrong? Well: it mattered to the jury. And it should damn well matter to any journalist who puts that as his occupation on his passport when he puts the liquids in a sealable bag and waits in an endless queue. It should matter.

26 paragraphs in, there it is, at last:

Yesterday at Woolwich Crown Court in South-East London a jury found Ali, Sarwar and Hussain guilty of conspiracy to murder after a five-month trial but failed to reach a verdict on whether they intended to blow up transatlantic jets.

Why so late in the story? Why - because that's exactly where the Mail intended it to be. The fact that no-one was convicted of plotting to blow up a plane does detract a little from the juicy details in the story, of the attempts to smear a Muslim organisation with terrorist links:

While Tablighi Jamaat maintains that it 'utterly refutes' any links to terrorism or terrorists, in 2003 the FBI said there was a significant Tablighi presence in the U.S. and that Al Qaeda used it for recruiting.

Right. So, that's it? That's all the evidence we have for running a scare story about a giant Mosque, the Olympics and terrorists? That's it - just what the FBI said once? You're kidding me, right? That's all there is to it - that is the justification for all this?

The links to terrorism are hard to ignore, especially when the group wants to build a £75million 'megamosque' for 12,000 worshippers next to the Olympic village and has hired a Westminster lobbying company to spearhead the bid.

You can see what's going on, quite clearly. It's an attempt to link things that may or may not be linked. If there were real investigative journalism that could link this organisation with real terrorism in a genuine way, as opposed to a peripheral way, then that would be a real story. Unfortunately, the Mail don't have the evidence - but have run the story as if they have. Why would they do that unless there is an agenda to scare, to deceive, to label Muslims as terrorists?

Here come the comments from well-informed readers...

So what are you now going to do....slap their hands and say bad boys than release them back onto the streets?
- Scott, Tucson, AZ, 8/9/2008 16:47

Yes, I imagine so. That is generally the sentence for conspiracy to murder. That is actually what you get for that nowadays, under New Labour.

And on, and on...

How can the government control terrorism when it is clear the Human Rights Act and poor immigration control helps it to flourish?. What we need are politicians with brains and courage.
- Robert El-Cid., Haltemprice, Yorks.,, 8/9/2008 17:29

Yes, these men benefited from poor immigration controls... by being born in Britain. That helped them slip under the radar a bit, didn't it?

So what happens now.?????...Do the scum get locked up..???? what happens when they get out???????
- Jacqui Weems, Southampton, 8/9/2008 17:37

Ah, lovely Jacqui, always there on a story about Muslims, aren't you my love? So many questions Jacqui, so many questions, so few answers... but the good news for you, my sweet, is that when the three chief plotters do finally get out if at all, you'll probably be dead.

What's the point ?
Another army of taxpayer funded lawyers will appeal these sentences, get them off on some 'yuman rights' excuse, and make another fortune out of us.
- cap, London, UK, 8/9/2008 17:40

That's right, cap. Nazir Hindawi served me in the Co-op today. And please, if you're going to make a good point ever, please refrain from the Littlejohnian "hilarious" phonetic mockney spelling - you fackin kunt.

The biggest joke is having a jury trial in the first place,who pays for that?
- M DAVENPORT, wilmslow Cheshire, 8/9/2008 17:40

Au contraire, M, I believe this trial shows the value of a diligent jury deliberating for many days and coming to a complicated conclusion about a complicated case. But to help you out, everyone pays for jury trials. What should we do instead - shoot suspected terrorists in the street? But ah, M my lovely friend, what then - who pays for the bullets and mopping up the blood? The already overburdened British taxpayer, that's who!

Anyway, here's some more shit about the leniency of the expected sentence from the legal eagles:

They are sure to get tagged for such a serious offence.
- howard taylor, stafford england, 8/9/2008 17:56

With this Government, they will end up with an ASBO.
- Mr David Phipps, Oxford, United Kingdom, 8/9/2008 18:14

See, ZaNuLiarBore = lenient sentences for people who want to kill other people, regardless of an ever increasing prison population and stiffer sentences handed down all the time. Forget about the facts, man! It's all about slagging off NuLab!

Scum, and what do we do when they are caught - let them go!
- Anon, England, 8/9/2008 18:47

What, how? How were these men let go? How? Who let them go? When? Where did this happen? How were these people let go? The people who have been convicted have been convicted. How's that letting them go? Do you even understand what 'let them go' actually means?

Once they finish their sentences (probably 4 months community service) is there any chance whatsoever that we can side step the "Uman Rights" laws and deport them.
- mike, usa expat, 8/9/2008 18:48

Yes, deport British nationals. To where exactly? Can I just point something out: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS BROWN, DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DEPORT THEM. Do you understand? Do you have a clue? Do you get that? No? No, you don't. You couldn't give a shit.

And at last, a lone voice among the confederacy of dunces:

Yes, of course they'll be locked up. Can anyone come up with a documented case where someone in this country has been found guilty of conspiracy to murder and not gone to jail? No, I thought not. This would come under the "any excuse to knock the government" thing we've got going here wouldn't it? And the key part of the article, if anyone has read it, is "face a life sentence".
And what this has to do with immigration is beyond me seeing as these guys are British born and bred.
- Dan, Essex, 8/9/2008 18:57

Finally, some sanity. But it took a good couple of thousand words before we got there.

*update* See also Septicisle's take on the story, with the added bonus of the Sun's utter bollocks headline from the time. I guess it goes to show that juries really can't be prejudiced by what they read in the press and really do decide the facts of a case on what they hear in court alone. That and they may well have thought what the Sun wrote, if they read it, was a crock of steaming shite.

No related posts.