Ben Goldacre writes about the dubious practices of the Express, Mail, Mirror and Telegraph in publishing dubious research as news – in the Express’ case the top half of a page contained an article on a product whilst the bottom half of the page would contain an advertisement on where the product could be purchased.

The reason papers are doing this is

Advertising revenues for newspapers will be down 25% this year. They are short of cash, they are short of money to pay people to fill their pages, and they print PR-reviewed “research” straight from the press release, because it’s quick and it’s cheap. Ben Goldacre, The Guardian.

And to be honest that’s what I come to expect from these newspapers – the trouble is it’s creeping into my newspaper as Goldacre writes

And nobody is immune. I love the Guardian. On Monday we printed a news article about a “report” “published” by Nuffield Health, headlined “No sex please, we’re British and we’re lazier than ever”. “This is the damning conclusion of a major new report published today,” says the press release from Nuffield about a document they call the “Nuffield Health Fitness Report”. News? I asked Nuffield’s press office for a copy of the new report, but they refused, and explained that the material is all secret. The Guardian journalist can’t have read it either. I don’t really see how this “report” has been “published”, and in all honesty, I wonder whether it even exists, in any meaningful sense, outside of a press release.

Nuffield Health are the people who run private hospitals and clinics which you can’t afford. In the week when the NHS is under attack from all sides in the US, The Guardian gave free advertising to Nuffield, for their unpublished published “report”, which nobody even read, in exchange for 370 words of content. This is endemic, and it creeps me out. Ben Goldacre, The Guardian.

Where else is The Guardian cutting corners? Who do you trust with the news?

As Five Chinese Crackers says.

Imagine this. You’re a newspaper editor and a major international incident is unfolding. Sketchy details start to emerge about people involved in the incident, but they’re very sketchy and far from being confirmed. Reporting the details could cause problems with a demonised section of society at home, but if they’re true the details are quite shocking. How do you break these sketchy, unconfirmed and unclearly sourced possibilities to your readership? What’s the ethical way to do it?

So the press do this

And the reality – The BBC reports No evidence of UK Mumbai link.

A top Indian official has said there was “no authentic information” to suggest that any British citizens were involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Maharashtra state chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said he “totally denied” reports.

Gordon Brown said he had spoken to India’s prime minister, who “at no point” suggested there was evidence of any terrorist of British origins.

What happened to checking the facts? You know, you can’t believe a word they print.

I hate stories like this – Christmas is axed in Oxford – which is what I expect from most of the UK’s newspapers. However it’s not what I expect from The Observer – Rowan Walker who works on the papers newsdesk wrote.

Council leaders in Oxford have decided to ban the word Christmas from this year’s festive celebrations to make them more ‘inclusive’. But the decision to rename the series of events the ‘Winter Light Festival’ has been criticised by religious leaders and locals said it was ‘ludicrous’.

Sabir Hussain Mirza, chairman of the Muslim Council of Oxford, said: ‘This is the one occasion which everyone looks forward to in the year. Christians, Muslims and other religions all look forward to Christmas. I’m angry and very, very disappointed. Christmas is special and we shouldn’t ignore it.

‘Christian people should be offended and 99 per cent of people will be against this. Christmas is part of being British.’

Rabbi Eli Bracknell, who teaches at the Jewish Educational Centre, said: ‘It’s important to maintain a traditional British Christmas. Anything that waters down traditional culture and Christianity in the UK is not positive for the British identity.’

The idea came from the charity Oxford Inspires, which was set up to promote culture in the area. Tei Williams, a press officer for the charity, said: ‘In Oxfordshire we have Winter Light which is a whole festival spanning two months. Within that will be Christmas carol services.’

Deputy leader of the council Ed Turner added: ‘There’s going to be a Christmas tree, and even if the lights are called something else to me they will be Christmas lights.’

As you read that you know there’s hardly a word of truth. Five Chinese Crackers carries out a little piece of journalism that’s eluded Roman Walker,

So, what do Oxford Inspires have to say for themselves, Christmas banning bastards that they are? The WinterLight page on their website says:

A dazzling calendar of events for the festive season is taking shape highlighting Christmas light switch-ons, pantomimes and special outdoor events in towns all across the county including Oxford’s WinterLight on Friday 28 November. [Emphasis mine]

What’s that Skippy? Are you trying to tell us something? The people who have banned the word Christmas have actually used the word Christmas? Why, that would make the whole article look a bit silly, so that can’t be true.

Maybe it’s not Oxford Inspires that have banned the word ‘Christmas’, but the council itself. What does their website have to say? Well, there’s ‘Christmas at Christ Church’ on 17 December, and again on 20 December, and there are ‘Christmas Arias on Ice’ on 21 and 22 December all in the events section. So it would appear that the Council haven’t banned the word either. To make matters worse, it seems that Oxford Inspires is a separate body from the council, and even if their WinterLights event completely excised all mention of Christmas, it would have no bearing on what the council did or didn’t do for Christmas.

When are newspapers going to stop employing such lazy journalists?