UK national newspaper Twitter accounts are continuing to grow - but the rate is getting slower and slower, according to the latest figures for the 129 accounts I'm tracking:

• July to August growth: 17%
• August to September growth: 17%
• September to October growth: 13.1%.
• October to November growth: 8.3%
• November to December growth: 6.6%

The detail

These accounts had 1,801,044 followers on November 2nd (ignoring one FT account that has been shut). On December 2nd they had 1,919,770 followers in total.

Of the 118,726 increase, 76,812 or 65% was for the @guardiantech account (which benefits from being on Twitter's suggested user list).

As ever, the full spreadsheet is here or you can see the iframe below.

UK national newspaper Twitter accounts are continuing to grow - but at an ever slower rate, according to the latest figures for the 130 accounts I'm tracking:

• July to August growth: 17%
• August to September growth: 17%
• September to October growth: 13.1%.
• October to November growth: 8.3%

The detail

These 130 accounts had 1,801,811 followers on November 2nd, up by 137,568 from 1,664,243 on October 1. Of that increase, 95,007 (or 69%) was for the @guardiantech account (which benefits from being on Twitter's suggested user list).

(NB the Telegraph seems to have deleted its badly spelled @TelegraphScienc account, so I've restated October's figures to be for 130 accounts, rather than the 131 I used to track).

The biggest mover was @MirrorFootball, up 11 places to 81st (from 455 to 809 followers), suggesting the Mirror is finally making some use of Twitter (most of its other accounts are near the bottom - and only appear to have moved up a place due to the demise of the Telegraph's Science account).

As ever, the full spreadsheet is here or you can see the iframe below.

June 2009 saw the Mail Online unexpectedly overtake both the Guardian and Telegraph in the ABCes, partly on the back of US traffic and Michael Jackson stories.

Fast forward to September and the story is the same as earlier in the year - Guardian 1st, Telegraph 2nd and Mail 3rd. So what changed from June to September? To find out, I've compared the ABCe figures for UK and foreign visitors in June and September. The difference between the Guardian's performance and that of the Telegraph and Mail is revealing.

Guardian: strong growth here and abroad

Table: September unique visitors (millions) and percentage change since June

Analysis

The Guardian has seen significant growth in the UK AND abroad.

Its total visitor numbers grew 14% from June to September (up from 29m to 33m). There was a 17% increase in UK visitors and a 12% increase in visitors from abroad. This makes it the most popular online newspaper in the UK by some way (it's 2.4m ahead of the Mail in second place).

UK visitors accounted for 36% of the total in September (barely changed from 35% in June).

Telegraph: overseas growth only

Table: September unique visitors, percentage change since June

Analysis

The Telegraph has also seen a 14% increase in total visitors from June (27.2m) to September (31m).

However, the geographical breakdown is revealing - its UK unique visitor numbers are down 1% from June to August but its overseas visitors are up 22% (from 18m to 21.9m). It's now the most visited UK newspaper abroad - but only the 3rd most visited inside the UK.

As a result, the proportion of its visitors that comes from the UK has fallen from 34% to 29% - the lowest of any UK newspaper (the Mail held this honour back in June).

The Telegraph saw the biggest increase in overseas visitors of any newspaper - but because its UK traffic fell, the Guardian beat it into 2nd place.

Mail: UK growth only

Table: September unique visitors, percentage change since June

Analysis

The Mail's stood fairly still between June and September - it had 30m visitors last month, up just 2% on three months ago. But its story is the reverse of the Telegraph's.

The Mail saw strong UK growth - up 14% to 9.5m visitors in three months. Overseas visitors, however, fell by 2% to 20.6m. As a result, it now gets 32% of its visitors from the UK (up from 28% in June).

It got overtaken by the Guardian because it hasn't been able to match and sustain its overseas growth.

And the rest ...

As for the others:

• The Sun is down to 23m visitors in September, an 8% fall over 3 months. A 15% collapse in overseas visitors couldn't make up for a 3% increase in UK users.
• The Times is a story of decline - 13% down overall, with a 10% fall in the UK and a 14% fall from overseas.
• The same is true of the Mirror (down 5% overall) and the Independent (down 6% overall) but to a lesser extent.

This table has all the stats. If you can't see the iframe, you can see the full spreadsheet here.

The Express doesn't take part in the ABCes. The FT does only some months.

National UK newspapers had 1,665,202 followers of their Twitter accounts at the start of October - an increase of 193,266 on September 1st (when they had 1,471,936).

The rate of growth has slowed, however. This is a monthly increase of 13.1%, compared with 17% from August 1 to September 1, and also from July 1 to August 1.

What's more, 151,555 of the increase (or 78% of the total) is down to just one account - that of @guardiantech (which owes its popularity to its place on the Twitter Suggested User List). Indeed, of the 131 accounts I'm tracking, 51 have fewer followers than me! You can see the full table here, or below.

I posted yesterday about the shameful reporting of the tragic death of a girl who died on the same day as getting the cervical cancer vaccine - and how, without any evidence of a link, the papers were giving the impression that the vaccine, which will save hundreds of lives a year, is unsafe.

So, how are the papers covering the news that, as the BBC news site puts it in its 3rd most important story:

• "Cancer jab 'unlikely' death cause: A girl who died shortly after being given a cervical cancer vaccine had a 'serious underlying medical condition', an NHS Trust says"?

This list is in order of how irresponsible I judged them yesterday. Unsurprisingly, the worst offenders are still whipping up hysteria.

Let's be clear. The only reason parents are worried, boycotting the vaccine, and demanding suspensions of the vaccination program is because the media whipped up a storm with no evidence whatsoever.

Mail Online

Still scaremongering and putting lives at risk

The Mail is leading its website with "Health Trust claims cervical cancer jab girl could have been killed by 'underlying health condition'". But note the two caveats - claims and could. Also, it is still linking her death with the jab in the headline.

Immediately under this headline is a link to another story that says "Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries". There aren't - he's a scaremonger too.

Express

Still scaremongering and putting lives at risk

Half way down the home page we have "Parents' revolt after girl dies in cancer jab horror".

The story does concede half way down that "it was most unlikely that the HPV vaccination was the cause of death". This doesn't quite tie in with cancer jab horror, does it? And they are only revolting because you, and the other papers, misled them.

The Mirror

Backtracked in a low-profile way

This led its front page with 'Jab death' yesterday. No sign of a follow up on the home page, although the main news page does lead with "Cervical cancer vaccine 'unlikely' to have killed girl".

Independent

Backtracked but published new misleading Q&A page

Three quarters of the way down the home page is "Cancer jab girl 'had health problem'".

It has another article on questions around the vaccine which asks "Haven't there been thousands of side effects".

The answer of "Yes. There have also been reports of deaths" is wholly misleading as it concedes that none of these deaths show any link to the vaccine.

And the 'reports' are just part of the monitoring of things that occur at around the same time. There are no reports which show that the vaccine is linked to any deaths.

The Sun

Explicit about no link

The home page has no coverage, but the main news page has a large headline near the top that says "Natalie wasn't killed by vaccine". This story is also featured in the top stories box.

Times

Explicit about no link

The headline near the top of the home page is "Cancer jab 'was not to blame for girl's death'". The comments are frightening though ...

Guardian

Fairly explicit about no link

Headline in the more news section says "Cervical cancer jab 'unlikely' to blame for death".

I have to ask, however, what the hell this is. Part of the Comment is free section, but highlighted high up on the Guardian's main cervical cancer page, it says "I had no truck with MMR fears, but the death of a schoolgirl given the HPV vaccine makes me hesitate".

Don't hesitate - don't contribute to encouraging others hesitating. Not having this vaccine puts your daughter's life at risk.

Telegraph

Explicit about no link

I had the Telegraph down as the least irresponsible coverage yesterday. Today, however, their 2nd most important story is "Cervical cancer vaccinations suspended" with "Cancer jab unlikely to have caused girl's death" in a much smaller font.

The UK media have learned nothing from the debacle over the MMR vaccine - where they relentlessly covered stories doubting the safety of MMR, putting the lives of children at risk.

Headline on Mail's story

They are continuing their habit of undermining public-health initiatives with their latest scare story about the safety of the cervical cancer jab, after the tragic death of a schoolgirl who had the vaccine the same day.

I've given each of the mainstream media an irresponsibility rating below - the Mail and Express are the worst scaremongers, followed by the Mirror and Times.

It's calculated as follows:

• A headline suggesting a causal link between the vaccine and the girl's death - there is no evidence of this so far, the two events just occurred on the same day: 20 points
• The use of a photo or words in the headline casting doubt on the safety of the vaccine itself (as opposed to, say, this being a one-off allergic reaction): 20 points
• Calls for the vaccine to be banned: 20 points
• No mention of how many lives the vaccine will save: 20 points.
• Separate comment piece doubting the safety of the vaccine, or emphasis of other stories about vaccine problems: 10 points
• Ill-informed user comments adding to the suggestion of unsafety. 10 points

Daily Mail: 90% irresponsible

Headline: First picture of girl, 14, who died after being injected with cervical cancer jab from 'rogue batch' (The Mail has subsequently updated its headline and story).

• The headline suggests a causal link. It makes claims of a 'rogue batch' in quotes where the only use of those words in the story are the journalist's own.
• It's running a poll: "Should the cervical cancer vaccination be suspended".
• There are a lot of figures about side effects - no mention of actual lives saved.
• The best rated comment is currently "Chemical experiments on our children." The worst rated is "Many more deaths may occur without the vaccine to guard against HPV." The comments section is appalling, frankly - full of ill-informed anti-vaccine scaremongering.

Express: 80% irresponsible

Headline: Girl, 14, dies after taking cervical cancer vaccine

• The story, illustrated with a picture of someone being vaccinated, says the death comes after "months of concern over the vaccine".
• It quotes a "campaign group for safe vaccinations" calling for immediate withdrawal of the vaccine.
• Terrible, irresponsible journalism. I hope the two journalists, Natalie Fahy and Sara Dixon, are ashamed of themselves.

The Mirror: 60% irresponsible

Mirror: jab death

Headline: 14 year old girl dies after cervical cancer jab

• The Mirror's story is fairly short. The headline suggests a causal link, but the story is fairly balanced although the number of lives saved isn't given.
• However, the story is described as 'jab death' on the Mirror home page. Given we are talking about a young girl's death, this is tabloidese at its most nauseating.

Independent: 50% irresponsible

Headline: Teenage girl dies after cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, although the story makes clear there isn't one. It doesn't say how many lives the vaccine will save, however.
• One of the two user comments (from someone who is clearly deluded about the media's position) says: "In my opinion vaccinations are NOT benign & injecting our children with 35 different vaccinations before the age of 5 is very foolish. The media are complicit in the 'vaccinations are perfectly safe' mantra."

The Sun: 40% irresponsible

Headline: Girl, 14, dies after cervical cancer jab

• Again, a causal link is suggested by the headline, although the story is fairly balanced, even though it doesn't mention the number of lives saved.
• The user comments are restrained and even, can I say, thoughtful.

Times: 30% irresponsible

Headline: Schoolgirl dies after being given cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, even though the story makes it clear there isn't one established. The piece is, however, fairly factual about the benefits and risks.
• However, the story is linked to another case where a girl suffered a mystery illness after the jab, with the mother claiming there is 'a serious problem with these injections'.
• There is one comment that says: "What is in this vaccine as they never say?? The h1n1 vaccine has squalene and mercury in it FACT !! This causes cancer and brain damage and the government have made the makers immune to prosecution WHY??". Another comment from a father whose daughter has developed pre-cancerous cells age 14 says "The press are attributing the tragic death of this young girl to the HPV vaccine. Scare mongering and speculation. It is for the coroner to determine the cause of death not Fleet Street. I wouldn't wish our last year on my worst enemy, so please parents, don't let this tragic incident cloud your judgement, sign the consent forms."
• I've edited this to make the Times only 30% irresponsible (rather than the original 50%) as it also ran a piece called "Benefits of cervical cancer vaccinations will far outweigh the risks".

The Guardian: 30% irresponsible

Headline: Schoolgirl dies after cervical cancer vaccination

• Despite this headline, the Guardian story makes it clear that there is no link yet between the vaccine and her death, and points out its benefit.
• However, it has run a separate comment piece claiming 'confidence will plunge if no answer is found'. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy if the media report the story like this.

Telegraph: 20% irresponsible

Headline:  Tributes to 14-year-old schoolgirl who died after being given cervical cancer jab

• The headline suggests a causal link, but otherwise the story is fair and mostly concentrates on reaction to the young girl's death.

If you're all appalled by this as me, why not vote in the Daily Mail's poll to keep the vaccine program going?

The Mirror's taken out some of the links to MoneyExtra that I recently said looked like paid-for links added for search engine optimisation reasons (which would put the site in breach of Google's guidelines - not that this would make it the only newspaper with paid links).

Of the 11 pages I pointed out, as of 10.30pm on Monday 14 Sept:

• 5 had weblinks to the MoneyExtra credit card page - 4 have had the MoneyExtra links removed. This one still has them, although the page layout has broken - maybe suggesting it's being republished - with the top navigation sitting over the content.
• 5 contained links to the MoneyExtra debt page - all 5 still contain this MoneyExtra link, but all 5 have the same broken-layout issue.
• 1 contained links to a MoneyExtra car insurance page - all these links have been removed.

Before and after

A before example

Before: with links to MoneyExtra

The same page now - without links

Now with links removed

I'll guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with the other pages. And I'm not sure why they've deleted them - couldn't the Mirror just have nofollowed them if they were genuine, editorially-chosen links and it was worried how they looked?

First, some caveats. There's nothing illegal about selling links. But Google is against the practice and can penalize websites who take part in it. And there's no evidence that the Mirror is accepting money for this (you can see all my newspaper paid link posts here). And it wouldn't be a problem if it was. Do you think that's enough caveats?

Anyway, mirror.co.uk wants to beware how its links look. Let's take a look at a few pages all of which share these characteristics - and wonder how they appear to Google:

• All contain three links to the same MoneyExtra page.
• All the links use different anchor text.
• The text happens to be competitive search terms.
• MoneyExtra isn't mentioned in the article itself.
• They were all published in August.

Pages on Mirror.co.uk from August

Here they are:

Headline: Sorting out the best credit card rate

This page from 20th August contains three links to the MoneyExtra credit cards page, using the link text "best credit card rate in the UK", "best credit card" and "credit cards". There is no mention of MoneyExtra in the article.

Two of the three links to MoneyExtra

Headline: Why do credit card providers offer credit cards with 0% interest?

This page from 20th August contains, er, three links to the MoneyExtra credit cards page, using the link text "credit card providers", "0% credit card interest rates", and "0% credit card deal". No mention of MoneyExtra in the article.

One of the three links to MoneyExtra

Headline: Best credit card transfer: Does one size fit all?

This page from 5th August for once contains, er, three links to the MoneyExtra credit cards page, using the link text "best credit card", "0% balance transfer rate" and "best credit card balance transfer rate". Again, no mention of MoneyExtra in the article.

Headline: Is it too late for debt management in England?

This page from 20th August contains, er, three links to the MoneyExtra debt page, using the link text "debt management", "debt" and "debt advice". There is no mention of MoneyExtra in the article.

One of the links to the MoneyExtra debt page

Headline: What is 'government debt management'?

This page from 20th August contains, guess what, three links to the MoneyExtra debt page, using the link text "Government debt solution", "debt management plans" and "debt". There's no mention of MoneyExtra in the article.

Two of the links to the MoneyExtra debt page

Something a bit different!

This page is a bit different. It's from the 20th August, naturally. But it contains FOUR links to the MoneyExtra car insurance quotes page - and mentions MoneyExtra in the article!

Some other pages

Other pages from August (not the 20th this time) which contain three links to a specific MoneyExtra page but which don't mention MoneyExtra in the article include: this one and this one and this one (OK, that one's only got two links) and this one (as has that one) and this one.

It does know how to nofollow

The Mirror has a page on the MoneyExtra site offering debt advice. It's here. However, all the links to external sites are nofollowed, which is what google advises you to do with paid links.

The end

Whatever's going on, the Mirror wants to be careful how it appears. Maybe it could also let us know the logic of which sites get linked to and which don't on pages like this.

National UK newspaper accounts have 1,471,936 followers at the start of September, an increase of 213,892 or 17% on August 1 (when they had 1,258,044 followers).

You can see the September figures in the table below (or here).

I have more Twitter statistics here.

The Guardian has more bookmarks on Delicious than any other UK newspaper according to Quarkbase.

There are 10,914 Guardian URLs bookmarked, with the Times in 2nd (3,944) and the Independent 3rd (3,196).

Quarkbase doesn't reveal how the figure is calculated. It must use the Delicious API somehow... Click the papers' name to see more Quarkbase data... And if you're reading via RSS, click here to see the video.