A service highlighting the riches of the daily press.
For Ulrika Jonsson fans, there is a treat in the Daily Mirrorand the Daily Mail.
Here we have two apparently similar treatments of a photo of Ulrika-ka-ka on the beach, but they're not the same.
First the Mirror. Page three has the Anglo-Swede in a bikini looking rather immaculate for her 41 summers of experience and four children. It highlights the surgical procedures it speculates she has had and concludes she looks rather good.
Over in the Daily Mail there is a very different approach.
They also have detailed annotation alleging multiple procedures, but they accompany it with a rather critical piece from the editor of the ominously-named Psychologies magazine.
She takes a dim view of la Jonsson. "Ulrika looks fantastic," Maureen Rice starts off. But it soon takes a critical turn.
"In making yourself feel better you've just helped make the rest of us feel a lot worse."
Basically Jonsson is causing a few problems for the sisterhood.
"How fair is that on our poor men? Naturally, they don't want to have sex with a woman who possesses what another columnist on this newspaper calls a 'porridgey stomach'."
Whoa there, sound the klaxon and set the flashing red light off. A Daily Mail columnist has just had a dig at another one, inferring a bad attitude towards womankind. Lordy.
The Mirror and the Daily Mail can't seem to agree on the name for the breast procedure that Ulrika has allegedly had. The Mail says mastoplexy and the Mirror says mastopexy. The Google jury says... mastopexy.
And while it's skimming through the Mirror, Paper Monitor has to confess it has not noticed this particular bit of design before, but what's with the Mirror's bylines?
The "by" is on a little computer keyboard button, along with the e-mail address, as if to emphasise that, although it might appear to be a fuddy, duddy piece of old newsprint, it is very much down with the kids, like Facebook and Bebo.
Over in the Daily Telegraph, there's an outbreak of the kind of thing that gives Paper Monitor sleepless nights.
The newspaper/media hub has pioneered an industry-wide move to get rid of subs. But it is without any sense of crowing that it is necessary to point out the mistake in the paper's review of this year's Cambridge Folk Festival.
The reviewer praises the diversity of the line-up - everyone from Allen Toussaint, Eliza Carthy, Joan Armatrading, and k.d. Lang to Bassekou Kouyate's "wondrous West African band Ngoni Ba" - and is amazed at the way Richard Hawley was lined up when John Hiatt pulled out on Wednesday.
But there's a small problem with this review of the 2009 festival. It is in fact a review of the 2008 festival. Here's the line-up for last year.
So it's now 1100 BST and the staff at the Telegraph have a race on their hands to turn the review into a 404 and pull it from their "latest festival news" section. The paper edition they can do nothing about it.
Of course, things do move slowly in the world of folk, so maybe it has taken a year to write the review and nothing is amiss.