Does the Mail ever tell the truth about reports?

If I've learned anything about the tabloids and their coverage of reports by people other than MigrationWatch and their buddies, it's that they lie about them. There's an example in today's Mail, in its story 'Migrant surge 'led to disorder and crime''. The first lie comes right there in the headline. The Audit Commission report, 'Crossing Borders' doesn't once use the term 'disorder and crime'. Neither does the press release 'Teaching migrant workers English will help ease challenges to councils'. If you don't believe me, just click the links and do a search for the term.

What the report actually says about crime and disorder is:
There is little evidence that the increased numbers of migrant workers have caused significant or systematic problems in respect of community safety or cohesion.
You just don't get more blatant contradictions than that. Plus:
Despite this, community perceptions about migrant workers can be inappropriately negative.
Wonder why that might be.

The word 'crime' is used in the document, as is the word 'disorder'. This is how 'crime' is used:
Migrant workers can be victims of crime, with much reported crime internal to new communities.
Not really the same as the impression created by the headline, eh? And:
Police report isolated examples of hate crimes, but there is no regular or widespread disorder.
Either is that. How about:
Some migrant workers may not trust the police in their home countries and so treat British police with suspicion. Differing assumptions can include expecting the police to require bribes. Such expectations hinder crime reporting and intelligence gathering, making prevention and cohesion activities harder.
Nope. It would appear not. And those are the only uses of the word 'crime'. We've already covered every use of the word 'disorder'. Did you miss it? It's above, where the report says 'there is no regular or widespread disorder'. That's it. The headline is, quite blatantly, a lie.

Of course, there's more than one way to lie about the contents of a document. You don't just have to make shit up from whole cloth. You can change wording to create a false impression. Of course, the Mail is against this when it comes to Alastair Campbell sexing up intelligence reports. When it comes to its own conduct though, it isn't so much against sexing things up as rabidly for, to the extent of doing it several times with a single document.

This is the Mail's preferred way of lying about reports. It doesn't usually go as far as just inventing phrases. It starts here with:
It cited noise and disruption around migrant housing, street drinking, breakdowns in refuse collections, tension over parking spaces and arguments in libraries where migrants "monopolise the Internet".
We already know that there is little evidence of significant problems. Still, the report did sort of cite these things, but the Mail have left one or two teensy details out. The paper seems to have taken this from one paragraph in the Audit Commission report. I'll reproduce it here in full. See if you can guess what they are:
Cohesion cannot be taken for granted and small tensions can develop, which can fuel local resentment. These include noise and disruption when large numbers of migrant workers leave for work early in the morning, noise linked to increases in the numbers living in individual properties, street drinking, failures to understand local refuse and recycling systems, tensions over other residents’ parking spaces if HMOs do not have adequate parking, and migrant workers appearing to monopolise the internet in libraries.
That's right. These are characterised as "small tensions". Makes it seem less apocalyptic when you put it like that, doesn't it? Also check the dropping of the words 'appearing to' before 'monopolise the internet' and 'if HMOs do not have adequate parking' after 'residents' parking spaces'. Plus the addition of the word 'arguments' and the transformation of the phrase 'failures to understand local refuse and recycling systems' into 'breakdowns in refuse collections'. That's not all though. In the report, this paragraph is followed by:
A number of local authorities and their partners have moved quickly to address such minor local frictions as part of wider work to promote locally cohesive communities. [...]
So the tensions are 'small' or 'minor', and some local authorities have addressed them quickly. Not the same as causing 'disorder and crime' is it?

The Mail loves sexing this document so much, it does it again:
The report raised deep concerns about road safety. It said police worries include vehicle and driving standards, unlicenced and uninsured cars, and drink driving.
Yes, the report does mention police worries about those things, but doesn't say anything about those being deep concerns. The paper has added that.

The Mail is like Peter Stringfellow when it comes to sexing things up in a disturbing manner:
The inquiry acknowledged "tension" with low-paid British workers as hundreds of thousands of migrants compete for jobs.
The report doesn't say this anywhere, anyhow. There are several mentions of the word 'tension', and none of them relate to competing for jobs with low-paid British workers. The closest it comes to it is:
While migrant workers are welcomed by employers, questions are often raised about potential competition in local labour markets, especially for job seekers with poor language and other skills.
There are often concerns that new arrivals compete with others at the bottom end of the labour market, especially those with poor English and low skills. Once migrant workers acquire better English they can compete for more skilled employment because of their higher existing skill levels.
Can you see the word 'tension' here? Me neither. See any references to how 'hundreds of thousands of migrants compete for jobs'? Me neither. I can see 'questions' and 'concerns' but not 'tension'. So why does that word get put in quotation marks? It's not a quotation.

Yuck. I've put the horrible image of a mucky old bloke with a mullet feeling up young women in my head with the opening to that last bit. It's not likely to go away, as the Mail rubs its thighs and does a Steptoe face at another section of document:
The Audit Commission report offered a string of recommendations including a major expansion of English teaching and "contingency plans" to deal with any escalation in tension.
As we already know, the report characterises any tension it actually mentions (as opposed to the mentions the Mail pretends it makes) as 'minor'. It only talks about tensions escalating here:
[Local Authorities should ensure that] Emerging tensions are monitored and joint contingency plans maintained in case they escalate.
Emerging tensions should not be allowed to escalate. Not the ones the Mail say already exist. Seriously, the paper makes it sound like there's widespread rioting and its all kicking off.

Another of the report's recommendations about minimising minor tensions includes:

Minimising local tensions by dispelling myths, responding swiftly to emerging problems and maintaining contingency plans.
Myths eh? Now where might people be getting these myths from? I think the Mail should tell us.

I want to stop now. I've had enough of the image of a drooling old mulleted pervert I've put in my own head. But the Mail just keeps fondling its crotch:
Despite authoritative independent warnings, the Home Office estimated at the time that 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come each year.

The commission's report said the fact that 662,000 new national insurance numbers had been handed out in the year to April 2006 - double the rate of 2003 - showed the scale of the foreign influx.
The Audit Commission Report is about overall migration. The 13,000 per year - although ridiculously optimistic - only referred to Eastern European immigration, which will be a fraction of the 662,000 for 2005 mentioned here.

That's it. I can't be arsed with the rest. It's coverage of the report it's already mischaracterised and set up as being far harsher than it in fact is. Suffice it to say that David Davis is a cock. he pops up in all these fake reports saying, 'this is terrible'. Div.

The Sun's less sophisticated take is here.

No comments: