Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

23Mar/100

Simply the best at misleading you

Have a look at this front page. What do you think the story is?

Does it read to you like Cheryl Cole was pregnant and she had a miscarriage? The fact that it's referred to as 'HER BABY' might make you think that. If you glanced at the online version, you could be forgiven for coming to the same conclusion:

It's referred to there as a 'LOST BABY', which is a fairly common idiom for a miscarriage. But that's not it at all:

CHERYL Cole was planning to start a family with estranged husband Ashley when he was exposed as a love cheat.

According to her brother Andrew Tweedy Cheryl Cole, 26, was working out how to combine her career with motherhood just before they split.

So, that's no baby that ever existed at all. The baby wasn't really lost in the sense of how most people would understand 'lost baby'; it was 'lost' in the sense of a lost opportunity to perhaps have children if the couple had stayed together, which they didn't.

It reminds me of this previous attempt from the 'Simply the best' Daily Star:

When the implication was that they'd had a secret reunion - something you might have suspected through the use of the phrase 'secret reunion' and a paparazzi picture. But the photo turned out to be years old and the 'secret reunion' was something that hadn't even happened, just something that had been suggested.

You might ask why this story about the baby that never was got onto the front page of the Star in the first place. Well, I have the answer to that:

That wouldn't be the 'Star' magazine published by the Daily Star's owners Northern & Shell, would it? Why yes, it would.

My favourite bit of the whole thing, though, is the refreshing honesty in putting 'news' in inverted commas. More 'news' here... if you can call it that. Just about the most accurate thing in the whole story.

4Mar/100

Back together? Well no, but…

Daily Star front page today*:

You might be forgiven for thinking, having read that, that Ashley and Cheryl are back together, given the 'Ashley and Cheryl back together' headline. It's a clever mislead, not maliciously deceptive, just a way of trying to get you to join the dots and come to a conclusion that isn't explicitly stated anywhere.

Look at the photo, for example - it's a snatched paparazzi picture to give you the impression that the estranged couple have been spotted out together in the 'secret reunion' mentioned in the second headline. But no, this picture comes a set that were taken in August 2008, where this alternative photo was used by the Evening Standard:

The Star cunningly never say this is a picture of the couple out together now - they just put up a snatched photo and leave you to make your own conclusions. They're hoping you'll buy the paper after a quick scan in order to read the story, which isn't a great crime of course.

But it does go to show what kind of techniques newspapers like the Star will use to try and make you leap to the wrong conclusion. The headline actually means "Ashley and Cheryl might be back together for one meeting, if this story about Roman Abramovich (for it is he who is the 'mystery cupid') is real". The picture is actually just a stock photo that might lead you to think this is the 'secret reunion', whereas in fact it's nearly two years old, and taken during happier times. There are no outright lies and no real deception; it's just a story from nowhere. One day it'll be Ashley & Cheryl; one day it'll be something else and someone else.

* Thanks to the ever-brilliant Beau Bo D'Or for finding the Star front page. I haven't used the whole paper because it's got some bollocks rumour about Jon Venables, quickly dismissed as a 'theory' - the guessing game just keeps carrying on with that one. By the end of the week he'll probably have been blamed for half of all the crimes in Britain.

24Feb/1010

Own Cole

This is how much I like to think the best of people. I read this in the Guardian (via @badjournalism) and thought, aarrgh, it's awful!

Chelsea are not looking great, as a promoter of marriage and family values: will they keep their heads down until it blows over, or tough it out? I would come out blazing if I were them. I would release a statement saying how much worse the players are at Manchester United. It might not limit any damage, but it would probably be true and it would give us all a laugh.

One thing is clear, however: short of going back in time and leaving him sooner, Cheryl has done this at exactly the right time. It was doing her image no favours, the surrendered-wife-cum-careworker role she had carved for herself. She will be much better loved now, like a Geordie Princess Diana. Plus she can get a hot new boyfriend. Raise high the roofbeams, Girls Aloud!

Then I thought, oh you silly fool, Vowl, you've been tricked. It's a big spoof of the really vacuous kind of celebrity gash that gets chucked into broadsheets nowadays, and you haven't noticed. You'll be made to look light a right plum if you go saying this is dreadful, when it's a clever bit of bait to raise the ire of idiots like you. But then I stopped talking to myself, and read it again.

In the meantime, everything has changed apart from Ashley Cole's own jackass behaviour. Cheryl Cole has gone from quite-famous member of a quite-famous girlband, to international, explosively beautiful superstar. This is heartening to watch; the depressing subtext of so many football scandals is that the wives have no ace to play. Unless you're in a Jilly Cooper novel, and the footballer is going to be dealt a death blow when he realises the love of his life has just upped and left him, what you're basically watching, from George Best to John Terry, is a man who can do exactly what he pleases and a woman persuading herself to forgive him because the alternative is to be exiled. Don't give me alimony, she is about to be exiled from the Garden of Eden. Cheryl Cole makes her own Eden: she has everything he has, in her own right, and more. Money don't maketh the feminist, no, but this looks more like the Noughties than the Fifties for a change, and it's cheering.

And I thought: God, no, you were right the first time. And that disappointed me greatly, because I hoped that it was a spoof and that I'd been tricked. I wanted it to be that cute, and for me to have been tripped up by it. That would have made everything all right. See, the Guardian isn't just printing a load of tripe about the Coles, I could say, it's rather more subtle than that; it's cleverly dismantling the broadsheet celebrity story and eviscerating it for our delectation. It's setting the bar really high and taking a stand against the giggling inanity of celeb coverage, and feeble articles about pop stars and footballers.

But no. No, it isn't. I wish it was true, but it's not.

23Feb/107

Breaking news

I get annoyed by lots of things. Some things shouldn't annoy you. Yes, I know, a footballer, with a dick, has split up from a singer, who doesn't have a dick; this is all tremendously exciting and intriguing for everyone, ever, because, as I've said before, news about dicks beats all other news. Would you believe it? People have sex with each other, and have relationships, and sometimes those relationships don't quite work out. Fancy that. If only popular culture could reflect these astonishing events, we might understand them a little better, these miraculous and bizarre things that take place.

It's annoying, of course, that it's all over the TV news stations now, and will be smeared all over the front pages tomorrow morning, and will be discussed ad nauseum by all kinds of awful bloggers, including me. It's annoying that it's a story at all, and that by saying you're annoyed by the fact that it's a story at all, you're adding to the noise and perpetuating the storyness of the non-story. All this is annoying, and yet I still continue to type.

And yet there's something specifically annoying about Sky's decision, above, to use the phrase BREAKING NEWS - in scary black-and-yellow, like it's a wasp about to buzz into your can of lager, or a strip of tape across a low-hanging beam that you might bump your head against while you're walking upstairs, or something like that - about the story. Because breaking is pretty surely what it isn't.

I am no English teacher, and I'm not entirely sure about the grammar of this whole situation, but there's something particularly piquing about the use of the present continuous - I think I'm correct with this, but no doubt I'll be set straight if I'm not - to describe this. Is the story really 'breaking'? Is this news 'breaking'? Surely it has broken? Cheryl and Ashley have called it a day, haven't they? She's not still in the process of telling him, is she? It's not as if this took a lot of time to happen. They were together; now it's confirmed they're not. It's not breaking. It's done, finished, behind us.

Oh you can try and pretend, as TV news and so on do, that there's still something to eke out of this, like a ketchup bottle turned on its lid in a student kitchen, but there really patently isn't. They were together; now they're not. Something has happened. I thought that was what news was? Apparently not. We have to pretend that there are things still going on, stuff still to be learned, so this can be spread out over hours and hours of pointless bastards gassing away on news programmes talking about what might happen, who might do what, how people might reflect on all this, who's going to take sides, who's going to be on Team Ashley or Team Cheryl - maybe they'll drag one of them in to be made to cry by Kay Burley. Who knows? More to the point, who gives a shit? I don't. It's done now, can't we talk about these things as if they've happened, rather than they're still happening. They're not.

The present continuous* just lets you know you're heading into a world of giddyingly vomitous crap in which this bloody story will never be left alone; in which this event, insignificant in all our lives though it really is, is stretched out into some never-ending poxy saga in which we learn nothing new about anything ever and discover that, yes, the thing that has happened has happened, and now we're left gazing at a bunch of flowers by the side of the road, pretending that a car crash is still actually going on, right in front of us.

Please, can it end? Will it end? When can we start talking about this as if it took place in the past, which it did? When can we start getting on with our lives without these two fuckwits looking a bit glum in photographs on our front pages. Ooh, I wonder why they're glum - couldn't be anything to do with the fact they've got half a hundredweight of sweaty photographers pointing massive fucking cameras in their faces as they clamber all over their front gardens and bellow at them like they're performing fucking seals? Surely not, surely not.

No. We're stuck with this. Stuck with this, in the never-ending present tense that stretches out to the horizon and never diminishes. This endless bloody story, dragged out until we're sick of it, until it's rammed down our throats and we choke on it - except I'm sick of it already. Make it stop. Make it be in the past. Please. Someone. Make it end now.

* I think I dislike this tense for another reason. It's the one in which computers talk to you. "Loading..." they smarm at you, when they're quite obviously not loading anything and are just pottering around, making whirring sounds and blinking a bit, like the lazy bastards they so clearly are and always will be.