Guardian apologises to the Sun

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.thesun.co....-Browns-sick-son.html

Not heard anyone complaining about these lies, had it been the Daily Mail rather than the Guardian who had published these lies, certain ABers would be fighting to get this bit of news posted on AB.

Double standards me thinks.

[jno]

?? The Guardian has apologised three days later for getting it wrong. It runs a regular corrections column for setting the record straight.

If you have any examples of the Daily Mail apologising to anyone for anything without first being threatened with legal action, please provide a link.

[jackthehat]

jno - Have you never looked at page 57 of the DM where cramped between an advert for Nubile Nora and her House of Correction hotline.......and the Bide-a-Wee home for distressed ferrets charity.....there is a teeny-weeny grudgingly apologetic (but not very) correction to a story that had banner headlines for a week sometime previously?

It always seems to be written by the teenaged child of one of the sub-editors;
'Oh! Alright! Look I've said sorry! If you weren't so selfish and unfair you wouldn't make me do this........I bet the Guardian don't force *their* hacks to apologise..........I hate you!'

[AB Editor]

Secondary question: Does anyone believe the apology should be to the same proportions of the orginal story?

Example: AOG is slandered by the Guardian across three pages for having an affair with Felicity Kendal. As this story was untrue and has been proven to be so the guardian would have to post an apology across three pages of the paper.

I quite like the idea, although maybe you could suggest 1/2 of the original column inches, to be a bit fairer on "honest mistakes"?

[jno]

I doubt you'd need the same amount of space - accounts of the imaginary affair might have occupied several pages, but how would you stretch out an apology to cover the same space? By reprinting the original story but inserting the word NOT into every sentence perhaps.

Always assuming that aog had objected to the story in the first place.

Jack, I'd heard that the Mail sometimes hides corrections away; even so, I suspect most of them come when prompted by lawyers. It doesn't apologise because it misled readers, only because it faces claims for damages.

The classic Guardian apology came when it had quoted the manager of a newly promoted team as saying “Our team was the worst in the First Division and I’m sure it’ll be the worst in the Premier League.” Turned out he'd said "tea".

[anotheoldgit]

Still not answered my point, why did you not rush to condemn the Guardian, because I am sure you would have done so if it had been the Mail?

Oh no you don't usually post points of view and questions, you just sit on the fence and wait to criticise other's that do, now don't you?

[anotheoldgit]

AB Editor

Much as I admire Felicity Kendal as an actress (or should that be actor these days, I just can't keep up) she is not really my 'cup of tea' sexually that is.

[Gromit]

The Daily Mail and several others also mis-reported the same story. The Daily Mail headline (I don't believe they have issued a correction) states:

// it's revealed The Sun had seen his sick son's medical files //

http://www.dailymail....ws-International.html

If the Guardian correction is to be believed, the story came from another source other than the Sun seeing the medical records. So When is the Daily Mail going to issue an apology?

The problem for all the papers was that the story was moving incredibly fast, and they all believed the wrong information (if it is wrong, we only have the Sun's word for it at the moment, no proof) supplied by Brown and did not check it thoroughly. A genuine mistake rather than premeditated criminality with the hacking.

[sandyRoe]

AB Editor, have you just traduced Felicity Kendal? Isn't a massive apology called for?

[Gromit]

http://conservativeho...ology-to-the-sun.html

[AB Editor]

"but how would you stretch out an apology to cover the same space?"

This is the point. You'd have to say you're Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very sorry and you'll never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do it again. OR you'd avoid printing lies, because the future damage would be too much.

[jake-the-peg]

Daily Mail Libel losses

2010, July—£47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
2009, January—£30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.
2006, May—£100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.
2003, October—Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.
2001, February—Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.


Guardian

http://www.guardian.c...an.pressandpublishing

Well nobody's perfect but I think we know who's ahead on points in the ethics stakes!

[Gromit]

AB Editor

If a false story stretched over 2 or 3 pages, but an apology is only a few lines, the paper could be asked to donate the remaining lineage to free advertising space for a charity or charities of the wronged party's choosing. That probably wouldn't work with voluntary corrections such as the Guardian's, but would for any court enforced apology.

[Gromit]

Jake

You missed the big one. The Daily Mail libel of Sheldon Adelson in 2008 which cost them £4Million!

http://www.pressgazet...y.asp?storycode=40629

[Ankou]

why would anyone care, particularly if one paper apologises to another or not. individuals yes, but papers ?

[jackthehat]

<<Still not answered my point, why did you not rush to condemn the Guardian, because I am sure you would have done so if it had been the Mail?>>

You have made an assumption/presumption and look to others to provide evidence that your notion is correct?

Ankou is correct.......one newspaper apologising to another is NOT the big news you seem to by asking us to believe.

[emmie]

AOG Wondered who would get there first, so how much more might be untruths, and now the Americans are involved, possible hacking of phones of those caught up in 9/11, sure this isn't some let's get Murdoch conspiracy. And the silly MP's, actors, whatnot getting their knickers in a twist, should remember that they are not snow white, they are quite happy to use the media when it suits them, their shenanigans has got them into bother big time, and most of the papers picked up on the stories like the expenses scandal. Lets' see which way the wind blows on this, anyone would think there wasn't more to worry about.

[anotheoldgit]

Out come the history books and the same old boring diversionary tactics are employed yet again.

I am not bothered about what happened in the past, get up to date (as you are always telling me to do).

My thread is up to the minute news about the Guardian accusing the Sun of hacking into Brown's son's medical records, I am not bothered if they played crafty and issued an apology before the Sun took them to court.

The issue here is that if The Daily Mail had made a recent similar lie, you would be falling over yourselves to post your comments,just as some have been 'Googling' like mad for past 'anti Daily Mail' examples.

You are so, so, predictable.

[boxtops]

I wouldn't AOG - it's not remotely of interest to me. Brown has been slated elsewhere for having double standards himself for not doing something about the privacy laws when he was PM. Different now it's his family which is affected, eh?

[Gromit]

// The issue here is that if The Daily Mail had made a recent similar lie //

They did. They repeated the lie but unlike the Grauniad they haven't apologised for their error.

[Gromit]

AOG
Speaking of predictable, I am sure you will ignore the Daily Mail printing the same lie but NOT correcting it. It is now in the public domain that the Sun did not get Brown's kid's medical record, but the Mail have printed that they did.

Why are you not castigating the Mail for this oversight?