On March 26th this year, a web developer called Nick Fitzsimons sent a Freedom of Information request to the BBC. He asked how many copies of each national paper it had bought in the most recent year for which figures were available.
The corporation response went beyond the brief and also listed the amount spent on each title in 2014. The BBC had bought more copies of the Mail than any other paper, and its Guardian order had fallen behind those for Times, Independent, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror to a total of 45,672 at a cost of £63,061. 
The numbers made a lead for the Press Gazette website and a diary note for the Guardian's Media Monkey, but generated little coverage beyond that.
That seemed about right - fascinating for media wonks, but hardly general interest news.
Unfortunately, however, the Beeb got its figures for one title wrong - and for an organisation constantly accused of being a leftwing hotbed, it couldn't have chosen a more slippery banana skin. It understated its Guardian consumption by almost 50%.

While the Mail found no interest last month in the fact that the BBC had bought 78,463 copies of its own product, the corrected information reinstating the Guardian as the most-purchased title (80,679 copies) is today page-lead material. 
This indulgence cost the BBC £127,643 - or 900 licence fees as a Freedom Association dial-a-quote described it - making "the Left-leaning newspaper" the "most popular title in its offices by far", media and technology editor Katherine Rushton reports.

The "only" is implied in that last sentence - which might equally well have said "By contrast, the BBC spent £22,730 on the Sun, the country's best-selling paper with an average circulation of 1.86 million".   
The story goes on to dissect the BBC's Guardian habit in terms of copies and cost per week. It also lists the annual totals for the Sunday titles, but it doesn't mention how many Mails the BBC bought. Or that the Times and Telegraph were also in the same ballpark. 
Nor does it consider cover prices. The Guardian cost £1.60 on weekdays and £2.50 on Saturdays last year, compared with 60p and 90p for the Mail. And the profligate BBC didn't spend even that much on the Mail - had it paid the full cover price, its bill for the paper (at 1,509 copies per week, against 1,551 of the Guardian) would have been more than £50,000.
That's still a long way short of its spending on the Guardian, but does anyone believe that our public service broadcaster should allocate its newspaper budget on the basis of circulation (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Sun), cost (in which case it isn't buying enough copies of the Star) or both (in which case it is shamefully neglecting the i and over-indulging in the Independent)?
At the foot of its original FoI response, the BBC asked publishers and broadcasters using its statistics to include the following statement:

The Mail duly obliges. But there was a further sentence in the statement that got lost - a sub cutting from the bottom would be the kind interpretation:

This may all sound very nit-picky, but when you omit relevant facts such as  the numbers of other daily papers bought, the different cover prices and discounts, then insert red herrings such as circulation figures, you turn straightforward information into a propaganda tool. 

So here, without comment or spin, is the detail of the BBC's annual trip to the newsagent:

Well, maybe one question - who gets the Sunday Sport?

It's Easter, the unofficial start to the dilettante's gardening season, and here's a free bag of compost to help you along.
Perhaps a bag of manure would have been more appropriate, for the Mail has been finding ordure everywhere this week.
A diligent series has uncovered how details of almost every aspect of our lives, including what should be confidential information about our finances, families and health, are sold for a few coppers and then used by cold-calling pests.
It's one thing for information supplied in questionnaires to be passed to the spammers and cold callers (two key lessons: never fill in marketing questionnaires and always untick the 'we may pass your details to carefully selected third parties' box), but we don't expect pharmacists and financial services to be trading in our personal information.
So while there was nothing very new in this week's series, well done to the Mail for hammering the message home.

But don't you  wish sometimes that the paper could get out of the habit of finding demons and feckless ne'er-do-wells at every turn? Does it always have to play the misanthrope viewing the world through thorn-encrusted spectacles? 
Does it have to spit out every message using the lexicon of disgust (the wordle above is a selection of this week's most popular headline words)? 

Take the death of Cynthia Lennon. Several papers chose to run a photograph of John and Cynthia on their front pages, most with the simple fact of her death in Majorca. But for the Mail, it had to be "Dead at 75, wife Lennon treated so cruelly". She doesn't even get a name. She's just a wife. And a victim. 
Then there's the obsession with "the Left" - and specifically the Guardian. On Wednesday the Guardian splashed on Liberal Democrat proposals for the media, including the establishment of a "public interest" defence for journalists, along the lines of America's First Amendment  - and plans to revisit Press regulation. 
Clegg is quoted as saying that current laws are too opaque. "Exactly what is the strength and nature of a public interest defence? I would like to see that clarified in law...The fact that prosecutors are relying on 13th-century laws, that we don't have an up-to-date definition of what a public interest defence is, shows the need for a proper review and a proper reform of the law."
The Mail took exception to this idea, publishing a "thanks, but no thanks" leader the next day. The last thing any true freedom-lover wanted, it wrote, was "self-interested and often self-enriching MPs" deciding what was in the public interest. 
Quite right. That should be for juries. Was that what Clegg really meant? It's what he said, but does he really want Parliament to define boundaries of public interest - or simply to create a public interest defence where none exists?
The Mail is in no doubt. It was Clegg's stitch-up, the leader continues, that "led to the disgraceful post-Leveson clampdown on newspapers".
And then, for good measure, the leader puts the boot into the Guardian for having the temerity to run the story.

Psychotic Guardian or paranoid Mail?
Maybe, in a week of scandalous data sales and the start of the general election campaign proper, the most telling piece to be published in the Mail was a tiny story at the foot of page 9 on Tuesday:

Well there's a thing. Jagger the Irish setter murdered by someone who knew their dogs with a slow-release poison at Crufts turns out to have been killed by a fast-acting pesticide at home in Belgium.
Congratulations to the Times for putting this piece of intellgence on the front page, coupled with a reasonably prominent right-hand page lead.
Last Monday the Times found itself in the sole company of the Daily Star in declining to use Jagger's photograph on the front page. Today it is the only paper to give him the prime slot. 
Everyone had a lot to say about the death of Jagger last week, as well they might, given that it was supposed to have been precipitated at the world's premier dog show. The story made the splash for the Mirror and Sun and while the Times preferred Paloma Faith for its front-page picture, there was plenty of room for Jagger's demise inside.

The Guardian and Telegraph put the story on page three, the Independent and Express on five, and the Mail gave it a spread on 4 and 5.

The Mirror and Mail, below, were so enamoured of the story that they gave it more big licks the next day - reporting that up to six dogs may have been poisoned and that Jagger may not have been the only one to die. The Telegraph, which had been the first to report that two other dogs had been taken ill, also put it on the front on day two.

There's no doubt that the death of a Crufts competitor the day after the show was a good story and a serious story. There was nothing wrong with the scale of the coverage, only with the lack of scepticism. The two sheepdogs who were supposed to have been taken ill sounded a bit like bandwagon jumping. The idea that a mad poisoner was going round targeting dogs willy-nilly stretched credulity, but if it were true, it was an even more serious story. 
But, as Gameoldgirl noted last week, something didn't feel right. There were too many contradictory theories being bandied about by the owners and breeders - even allowing for their understandable distress. As an onlooker it seems as though they were desperately firing scattershot in search of an explanation that would not point to any negligence on their part and Crufts got caught in the crossfire.
So now we know that Jagger could not have been poisoned at the show, how have the papers reported it today? Here are the cuttings:

Not bad really. Apart from the Independent, most gave the story some prominence, albeit further back in the book than the original, as you'd expect. But there are no comments from the owners or breeders. There is also a cutting missing from the collection above. Mail Online put the story up live yesterday evening. I've been through the paper several times but am blowed if I can find it in the print edition. Can anyone help me on that?

And while we're talking dogs, whatever happened to that petition about the supreme champion?
Gameoldgirl: Red setters and red herrings

The Mail on Sunday yesterday and today's Daily Star. Nothing more to say, really. Just thought someone might be interested.
Oh, and that "Jihadi John hell" story in column one...I think we might have seen that one before, too...

There's an air of Midsomer about the death of Jagger the Irish setter 26 hours after he competed at Crufts.
To the outsider this is a jolly world of waggy tails and wobbly bottoms, cosy weekend television in the company of the dependable Clare Balding.
But behind the scenes of this British institution rivalries fester. Controversy and Crufts are regular bedfellows.
Now a dog has died.  A vet conducting a post-mortem has apparently found cubes of beef laced with three different types of poison. Two sheepdogs at the show are also reported to have been taken ill.
All this at the most prestigious event on the calendar of an elite and influential society that lays down laws for millions to follow, a society not renowned for its fondness of outside scrutiny.
No wonder that the story made most front pages today, but how to treat it?  It's a serious tale that will provoke a reaction from every reader; it's what everyone will talk about in the pub; it'll be a first-round question in Friday's News Quiz. But getting the tone right is tricky. 
"Murder at Crufts" shout the Mirror and Sun splash heads. But while the Mirror maintains its straight face, the Sun can't resist the subhead "Police are following all leads". For the Guardian and Independent, this was the "curious incident of the dog..." The Telegraph - Fleet Street's supposed expert on "country" matters - asks "Is a mystery poisoner hounding Crufts?" 
The lame pun is misjudged, but then The Times's "Crufts contender poisoned by jealous rivals, owner claims" is so straight that it sounds almost ridiculous. The Mail, always seeking a different angle, suggests that the wrong dog had been poisoned: Jagger's half-brother Pot Noodle is the more successful and the two had switched places on the competitors' benches. 
Wrong dog?  Oh dear, here we are back in the land of mid-evening ITV3 detective shows and their red herrings. The Sun also picked up on this in its inside coverage - under the heading "Murder in the first pedigree". It doesn't matter which dog was the target; what makes this news is the possibility that any dog was deliberately and fatally poisoned at Crufts. 
The owners and breeders haven't helped with their scattergun theories:


"It could have been Jagger was targeted by mistake. Pot Noodle had been achieving more glory and the two look very much alike."
"It could be someone with a vengeance trying to stop our success."
"I don't believe it had anything to do with other competitors."
"Strange things have been happening. At Richmond dog show somebody let Pot Noodle out of his cage and he went missing for an hour."
"There would only have been a tiny window of opportunity. That's when you rely on other competitors to look out for your dog."
"Whoever did this knew what they were doing, trying to get the right poison with a slow release."
"He has clearly been poisoned on purpose. Jagger loved people and he loved food. He would have trusted whoever gave it to him."
"The vet said there were two or three types of poison in his stomach. I think she identified one as a slug killer. I would guess the others would turn out to be a rat poison or industrial poison."
"We think this is the work of some random psychopathic dog hater who decided to visit Crufts with one thing in mind, rather than any sort of targeted attack."
"He could have been targeted for being a foreign dog. There's a lot of ill-feeling from some camps towards them."
"I don't want to believe a fellow competitor would do this. I think Jagger was the wrong dog in the wrong place and I'm hoping it was just some maniac who wanted to poison a dog."
"To think he may have been targeted by a rival at a dog show makes it even harder to take."
"It has been suggested that someone's really got it in for us. We're very proud of our record and maybe some people aren't happy."

Right, a random maniac or a jealous rival. A complete stranger or someone the dog would trust. All very emotional. All very Midsomer. Barnaby will have his work cut out here. 
He could, of course, look to Crufts for assistance. The show organisers have so far said only that they are sorry about the death - and emphasised that the dog died not at the NEC in Birmingham, but at home in Belgium the next day.
One report this morning says that the competitors' benches are open to the public - obvious when you think about it, given the number of pictures of peek-a-boo pooches we see in Crufts week. Perhaps someone might ask the Kennel Club about its security arrangements.
Jagger was reportedly worth £50,000. Breeding and showing is big business, a dog-eats-dog world. I have a niggling feeling about this story and some of the things that have been said. 
And I bet those sheepdogs have nothing to do with it.

Tuesday update: More controversy, this time over the owner of the supreme champion. She lifted it by its tail and neck. The Kennel Club says she's been warned about it before. She says "I didn't mean to. It's a habit." In other words "I do it all the time, but didn't mean to do it when anyone was looking." 
You do wonder about people sometimes.
Now at least two online petitions are demanding that she be stripped of the title; they have already attracted 135,000 signatures.
The Kennel Club says the owner is very caring and that it wouldn't be fair to the dog to take away its title because of something the owner did.
As to Jagger and other suspected poisonings - including a claim that another dog died after competing at the show - the club has posted this statement on its Facebook page:

This Aussie blonde...THIS AUSSIE BLONDE??? What is going on here? 
Natalie Bennett's nightmare LBC interview brought such levels of delight to our newspapers today that some almost forgot that one of the most respected Conservative politicians of the last 40 years had resigned in embarrassment, if not shame.
Time for "full disclosure", as Greenslade would say. I worked closely with Bennett at The Times for several years. And by closely, I mean we were two of half a dozen people who toiled through until 3am nightly.
She was argumentative, she was unconventional, she made enemies - often simply because of that Queensland voice that could cut through prison bars (it has really softened in the past couple of years). She was also professional, determined and thoughtful. I am proud to have worked with her and hugely proud of what she has achieved. To emerge from the trogladyte world of subbing to play cricket for the Times and lead a political party is no mean feat. Especially if you are a woman.
Any political leader who makes such a spectacular hash of a radio interview at any time - let alone a couple of months before a general election - is bound to come in for harsh scrutiny. Bennett knew and accepted as much. 
But "Aussie blonde"? What have either got to do with housing policy or mastery of a brief?
Ah yes, this is the paper whose target audience is women. This is the most read news organisation in the country - if not the world. This is the newspaper that described the Danish Prime Minister as a "flirty blonde". 
God help us.

Several columnists have taken the view that the "brain fade" interview will do Bennett no harm as listeners feel sympathy for her. That was also the impression given by today's Feedback programme on Radio 4. Listeners wrote in to ask why it was necessary for BBC news broadcasts to keep replaying the interview. Well, there is probably a political justification.
Or maybe it has footage on a loop? I watched the BBC's six o'clock news for the first time in yonks last night - and could hardly believe what I was seeing. One of the main items, after the disclosure of the identity of the Isis butcher newspapers persist in calling "Jihadi John", was Madonna's fall down three steps during the Brit awards on Tuesday. We saw the fall, then we saw it again. Then we had some people talking about it. Then we saw the fall. Then we saw it again with some people talking over it. And then, for good measure, we saw it again as the reporter handed back to Fiona Bruce. Sadly, the bulletin comes down from iPlayer at lunchtime, so I can't be sure of the total number of times it was shown - but I'd be surprised if it were fewer than six. Why?