Not biased against asylum seekers? Do me a favour

I had to laugh when I read these: 'Tabloids defend asylum coverage' and 'Mail and Express deny asylum coverage'. Laugh and laugh and laugh. There's a great fat lie from Peter Hill in the Guardian article:
"I would never put any of my journalists under pressure to write something that they wouldn't want to write. I would never do that," Mr Hill told the committee.
Oh really? Never? What's this about then? 'Express newspaper faces criticism from its own journalists for anti-Roma stance':
Journalists at the Daily Express say that editors are pressurising them 'to write anti-Gypsy' articles. Last week, the newspaper ran a campaign to prevent Roma (Gypsies) from new EU countries coming to Britain - which led to the government announcing new restrictions.[...]

Journalists at the paper have now called on the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to help protect them from the demands of their own editors and management to write such articles.
If Hill would never pressure his journalists to write something they don't want to, why would a group of them complain to the PCC that they'd been pressured to write something they didn't want to write?

There's another cracking quote from Hill - the man whose paper went with the headline 'Bombers are all spongeing asylum seekers' after July 21 2005, when the identity of only two of the bombers were known and neither was an asylum seeker:
"We must be able to be truthful in our headlines what the facts are, palatable or otherwise," he said.

"We can't tailor our headlines to fit news as you would wish it to be."
What?! Has this nutjob ever actually read any of the headlines in his paper? I'm not just talking about the bombers one, but for others I've mentioned here in 'Police killer escapes in veil', 'How much is an Express headline worth?', 'Comparing reactionary articles can be fun!', 'Daily Express in 'Headline is misleading arse' shocker!', 'The world's most bigoted newspaper', 'No wonder their readers are ignorant tossers', and 'Daily Express headlines worth the paper they're written on?' And that's not to mention all the shite about Diana's 'murder' and the rubbish about the weather that's so often wrong.

Paul Dacre didn't give evidence, but the representative from the Mail apparently said:
Mr Esser told the joint committee that said that Daily Mail journalists were given a copy of the Press Complaints Commission code that they kept in their wallets.
If that's the case, why do they keep calling people who aren't seeking asylum 'asylum seekers', which goes against the PCC guidelines? And:
"But the idea that they are running around looking for inflammatory things to say about asylum seekers is wrong."
AH HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAH! I think a bit of wee came out.

Great stat from the Guardian article:
Daily Express readers believed that 21% of the population were immigrants, Daily Mail readers thought that 19% of the population were immigrants and Guardian readers thought that 11% of the population were immigrants.

In reality 7% of the population were immigrants, Mr Travis said.
Says it all really.

And on the subject of immigration, I forwarded my reply from the Treasury about MigrationWatch's figures to MigrationWatch last week, suggesting that a correction or a retraction might be in order. Nothing from them in my inbox. Not even a tumbleweed. Surprised?

No comments: