Cause and effect

An international poll, details of which are published today in the Financial Times but have yet to pop up elsewhere, shows that Britain tops the league table of anti-immigrant hostility.

The study, carried out by a group of international bodies including the UK's own Barrow Cadbury Trust, found that almost half of Britons think there are "too many foreign-born people in this country". In other European countries this figure averaged three in 10, and in the USA - where there's been a huge amount of anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Tea Party - it was just a quarter.

The FT goes on:

"Britons were also more likely to think foreign arrivals damaged “national culture” [and]some 70 per cent of British people think their government is doing a “poor job” of tackling the issue."

So far, so depressing. The interesting stuff is further down, where it becomes clear that, in the FT's own words, public opinion seems "out of step with reality":

"When asked to guess how many people in Britain were foreign-born, the average UK response was three in 10. When told the estimate by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was in fact just one in 10, more than two-thirds of UK people thought this was either “not many” (36 per cent) or “a lot but not too many” (31 per cent). Just 30 per cent thought it was “too many”. Far more British people than their western counterparts also thought migrants were a burden on public services, even though most research suggests they are in fact a net contributor."

But why do so many people overestimate the number of migrants living in this country? The FT isn't afraid to point the finger:

"Immigration experts blame this on the hostility to foreign newcomers espoused by many British newspapers and the fact that the arrivals from eastern Europe rose so rapidly during the middle of the last decade."

Virtually every day of the week the likes of the Mail and Express provide a drip-feed of scare stories about immigrants that have, as TabloidWatch, Minority Thought, Angry Mob and the rest of the gang regulalry point out, a relationship to the truth that is tenuous at best.

We're repeatedly told that "you can't talk about immigration" without being called a racist. Yet the taboids talk bollocks about it day after day after day, feeding people lies and distortions that lead to the average Brit overestimating the number of migrants living here by a factor of three. And when people are told the true figure, two-thirds of people think that, actually, that's not too many at all.

Newspapers sell copies by reflecting the views of their readers - the Guardian supports student protesters for the same reason the Express hates people who aren't white. But is it too much to ask for papers to at least base their prejudices in fact?

Express complains about failed asylum seeker leaving the country

Barely a day goes by without the Daily Express complaining about the Government's failure to eject foreigners from the country, so you think they'd be pleased by the story of Farid Boukemiche, who is currently on trial in Paris accused of helping to finance terrorists.

The 34-year-old French Algerian spent three years on remand in a British jail before the case against him was dropped to avoid a public airing for evidence that could endanger undercover operations in north Africa. In June 2000 he was given a 12-month sentence for possessing false identity documents, but was released because he'd already spent so long in prison.

As today's Telegraph reports, upon his release Boukemiche tried to claim political asylum in the UK but his application was rejected and he returned to his home country, France.

Let's review the facts:

1) Man is convicted of criminal offence, but released due to time served.
2) Man attempts to claim asylum, but claim is rejected.
3) Man leaves country (legally) and returns to his home nation.

The Express should be delighted by this - Boukemiche committed a crime, was convicted, spent time in prison and then left the country. But apparently not:

That's the headline on page 15 of today's Express. But Boukemiche is not a "fugitive" in any recognised sense of the word. The terrorist case against him in Britain was dropped, he was convicted of another offence, released from prison and left the country legally after being refused asylum.

The story, written by Peter Allen and John Twomey, begins:

A MUSLIM extremist who fled Britain after the collapse of a £3million trial set up a cross-Channel terror network in France, a court heard yesterday.

Again, he didn't "flee" Britain. He left, legally, to go back to his home country after being refused the right to stay here.

Last month the Express (and the rest of the tabloid press) was up in arms about the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a failed asylum seeker who was allowed to stay in Britain at the end of a prison term that was imposed for running over and killing a 12-year-old girl. A leader comment called it a "truly sickening decision". Columnist Leo McKinstry complained that the immigration authorities showed "characteristic feebleness" when they failed to "kick him out" after his asylum claim was rejected.

But when the system DOES work, when a failed asylum seeker with a criminal record DOES leave the country after the legal system has finished with him, suddenly he becomes a "fugitive" who has "fled the country".

What, exactly, does the Express want the authorities to do with such people?

Sunday Express Exclusive: Muslims "do Muslim stuff"

Step aside Woodward and Bernstein, the intrepid Express duo of Jarvis and Bhatia have an "exclusive" that puts your lightweight Watergate "investigation" to shame:

MUSLIMS CUT BODIES FOR FAITH

Really? Could that be the relatively well-known ritual called Matam that appears in the papers on a semi-regular basis and which crops up in most secondary RE lessons? The one where people self-flagellate? But what's that you say? Those pesky Muslims are doing their filthy Muslim business IN BRITAIN????!?!?!

ISLAMIC fanatics are mutilating themselves at British mosque in a bloody ceremony carried out only yard from a busy high street.

How very dare they! This is Britain, I don't want their unusual religious habits rammed down my throat!

Huge wooden screens were put up around the mosque to keep the event secret and prevent passers-by on busy Romford Road seeing the bloodletting.

Oh. Still, at least the Express's crack reporting duo has tracked down this enormo-story in double-quick time.

The Sunday Express visited the mosque last week and learned that the ceremony took place last December.

Right. So the mosque didn't tell anyone about the event, took steps to avoid people seeing it and nobody has complained at any point in the ELEVEN MONTHS since it happened? Hang on, there is one "witness", who of course remains anonymous:

"There was blood everywhere ... I was told it was part of a religious ceremony but the anti-western sentiment was clear. If the public had seen it they would have reported it to the police."

And yet the not-at-all-entirely-made-up Express "witness" didn't report it to the police? And what about that "anti-western sentiment"? Any evidence of that at all? No? Oh well. Surely now that the Express have brought this awful, awful abomination to the attention of the authorities, something will be done about it?

Scotland Yard said it was aware of the annual Ashura event at the mosque but had no knowledge of the bloodletting which it said it had no power to ban.

A spokesman said: “If it is on private property and no offence is being committed this is not a matter for the police. The Ashura is an annual community event which has taken place in Newham for many years.”

Newham Council said it had no knowledge of the Matam taking place and the Ministry of Justice said self-flagellation was not an offence.

Hmmm. I think self-flagellation in the name of religion is a bit crackers - and that applies to the Catholics who do it, too - but if you want to do it that's up to you. The Muslims in this story did what they did behind closed doors, on private property, having taken steps to make sure other people couldn't be upset by seeing a rather bloody spectacle. What they were doing is not against the law, the police have known about it for years, and nobody has ever complained.

So what, exactly, is the (page 12 lead) story here? Is this an "exclusive" because no other paper would go near it? Well, maybe the Mail...

It's (officially) the most miserable time of the year...

The Daily Express's bizarre obsession with scrapping Greenwich Mean Time continues apace, as does the paper's "interesting" association with the truth. First they warned of diabolical problems to come. Then they claimed that half the population of Britain supported their campaign. Then we informed that the country had been plunged into chaos by the simple act of changing the time on the clocks on the same weekend that we've done so in almost every year since 1916.

Today we get the latest salvo in the Express's fight to scrap a British institution and replace it with something that will bring us into line with Europe (I know, it's very confusing for me too). Not only are we facing imminent doom and the collapse of the nation's critical infrastructure, we're also going to have to deal with a spiralling downturn in mental health. For today, Monday 1 November is - "officially" - the most miserable day of the year.

BRITONS ARE MISERABLE AS CLOCKS GO BACK
FEELING glum? You’re not alone because today is officially the most miserable day of the year. As temperatures plunge, clocks go back and with Government cuts set to bite, millions of Britons are slumping into a gloomy mood.

The hook is a survey conducted by researchers commissioned by the Canary Islands tourist board. It found that:

As many as 66 per cent will be depressed today ... with 47 per cent saying they hate this time of the year and 48 per cent say they feel more tired.

So it's official. It has been Proved By Science that putting the clocks back makes you miserable. If I was a journalist working at the Daily Express I'd be pretty glum all year round, especially as the highly skilled professionals there are expected to simply rewrite press releases. Sometimes they don't even bother rewriting their source material - here's the opening paragraph from the Mail's coverage of the same story:

Feeling glum? You’re not alone - today is officially the most miserable day of the year.As temperatures plunge, clocks go back and with government cuts set to bite, millions of Britons are slumping into a gloomy mood, according to a new study out yesterday.

It's one of those classic "spurious survey = easy headlines" stories, and it certainly seems to have worked - Google gives more than 1,600 matches for "Canary Islands" and "Most miserable day", so there's no shortage of churnalists ready to pick this one up in order to fill a few column inches.

As an aside, it's worth noting that in the part of the survey that identified the glummest and happiest parts of the country, Glasgow was home to the most miserable folk and Southampton was home to the happiest. If the change to GMT was responsible for such widespread misery, surely people on the south coast would be the ones weeping quietly in the darkness, while those in the far north were celebrating?

Anyway, back to the survey. The coverage is very clear on the point that today is "officially" the most miserable, as the survey has proved it. But then science has also proved the same fact about another day entirely - for several years now papers have been trotting out the line that the third Monday in January is officially the most miserable day of the year:

• 18 January 2010 (Mail): If you think life is a grind and you'd rather be doing anything other than going to work, you're not alone. Today is officially Blue Monday - the most miserable day of the year.
  
• 19 January 2009 (Express): TODAY will be the most miserable day of the year as workers trudge to offices fed-up, skint and suffering from colds and flu, according to psychologists. Experts pinpoint “Blue Monday” – January 19 – as the point when such things as the credit crunch, worries over Christmas bills and the long, dark winter take their highest toll on Britons.
  
• 22 January 2007 (The Sun): TODAY is set to be the most miserable day of the year, a psychologist has claimed. January 22 emerged as the worst date when common reasons for the blues were totted up.

To make things more confusing, just last month scientists proved beyond all doubt that Mondays are not the most miserable day of the week

• 11 October 2010 (Mail):When Bob Geldof wrote his hit song I Don't Like Mondays, it became an anthem for every office worker who enjoy their fun-filled weekends and hate the beginning of the week and back to the daily grind*. Now a survey using smartphone technology has revealed that Tuesday and not Monday is the day most people feel miserable.

There is nothing the papers like more than good survey story. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is. It doesn't matter how unscientific the research behind the headline figures are. It doesn't matter if the same paper printed something that directly contradicted its own story a few months earlier. It fills pages, it's cheaper than paying someone to write actual news and, as the Express showed, it can be used as "evidence" to back up whatever crazy campaign the paper is working on at the moment.

But is it journalism? I think not.

I'm often baffled by how this sort of thing fits into the broader media narrative about science. As the likes of Ben Goldacre and the excellent Atomic Spin continue to point out, the media aren't very good with science. Not only do they not understand it, they often like to portray serious and qualified researchers as dangerous cranks when they conduct peer-reviewed research that presents uncomfortable findings (be it on MMR, global warming or a host of other issues). However, they're more than willing to take a random survey conducted by a company that wants people to take holidays somewhere sunnier and deem that its conclusions are "official".

In short, it appears that a fun but unscientific bit of PR spin can be relied on 100 per cent and its findings presetned as fact, but a serious academic study is never to be trusted. It's no wonder so many of us are so miserable.

*Um, actually it was about a schoolgirl murdering her classmates. I'm not sure that's the kind of fun-filled weekend the Mail generally approves of.

"Cynically cashing in"

The Express is outraged at talk of a Kiera Knightley/ Helen Mirren film about the early years of Princess Diana's life, said to bein the early stages of production.

"A FILM depicting the life and death of Princess Diana was accused last night of cynically 'cashing in' on her memory. Critics claimed the movie was 'extremely inappropriate' and could tarnish how people remember her."

And who is so outraged by the content of this film that has not yet been made? Her family? Her friends? Or a random member of the public with a slightly creepy Diana obsession?

Margaret Funnell, co-founder of the Diana Circle UK, a group dedicated to the Princess’s memory, said: “I don’t think anyone should make money out of the death of another person – and certainly not Diana. “We don’t need a glorified blockbuster about her life where all the facts are twisted and blown out of proportion. “It could tarnish her memory. I hope there is enough opposition to stop it.”

There's a certain irony in the Diana Circle campaigning against a film telling their idol's story, given that they think the "People's Princess" is being "airbrushed out of history" and have pledged to do all they can to keep her memory alive.

But before they take on a film that hasn't even made it out of pre-production, perhaps they, and the Daily Express, should turn their focus on a journal of ill-repute that seems determined to shift copies off the back of Diana's name with headlines such as:

"Princess Diana tells psychic her death was a well-planned accident"

"Diana was murdered says QC as he tells of unanswered questions"

"Princess Diana: The 500 hidden clues"

"Diana was killed over plan to expose UK arms dealers"

"Teacher at Princess Diana's old school in porn case"

"Diana's doctor love to marry colleague"

"Diana: New Sensation"

"Exclusive: Diana - why it was a murder plot"

And many, many, many more... Anyone want to guess which paper they come from?