So It Was Just Another Dirty Con Trick...
News5 mins ago
More Laughable Lies To The Leveson Enquiry
22 Answers
http://www.journalism...erzealous/s2/a549154/
In case you don't remember the day the Italian appeal court cleared Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito, the presiding, The Mail were so desperate to be first with the News that they had an article ready saying "Guilty verdict upheld".
Unfortunately for them ...
(1) the verdict was overturned, and
(2) the article reported fake interviews that had never taken place, and fake statements from the families involved that had never been made, and
(3) The Mail published it. along with the fabricated statements.
Today, The Editor of the Mail online was explaining to the Leveson Inquiry ... why it happened.
He put it down to "human error".
Human errors ...
(1) bit of an error to employ journalists who are happy to invent things.
(2) bit of an error by the Editor to approve of the publication of complete fiction posing as "current affairs".
(3) bit of an error to be paying no attention to what the judges were saying.
So is this ...
(a) human error?
(b) another low point for "so called" journalism?
(c) just what you'd expect from a newspaper with such a flimsy interest in the truth?
(d) a transparent attempt to irritate Mail readers? (no one in particular, LOL)
In case you don't remember the day the Italian appeal court cleared Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito, the presiding, The Mail were so desperate to be first with the News that they had an article ready saying "Guilty verdict upheld".
Unfortunately for them ...
(1) the verdict was overturned, and
(2) the article reported fake interviews that had never taken place, and fake statements from the families involved that had never been made, and
(3) The Mail published it. along with the fabricated statements.
Today, The Editor of the Mail online was explaining to the Leveson Inquiry ... why it happened.
He put it down to "human error".
Human errors ...
(1) bit of an error to employ journalists who are happy to invent things.
(2) bit of an error by the Editor to approve of the publication of complete fiction posing as "current affairs".
(3) bit of an error to be paying no attention to what the judges were saying.
So is this ...
(a) human error?
(b) another low point for "so called" journalism?
(c) just what you'd expect from a newspaper with such a flimsy interest in the truth?
(d) a transparent attempt to irritate Mail readers? (no one in particular, LOL)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it's not uncommon for newspapers to prepare alternative versions of stories that they know are about to happen, though comparatively rare for them to be released by accident. This is one of the most famous:
http://www.blackarchi...llection/00000268.jpg
And the competition to be first with the news is even more fierce with websites that can publish stories instantly. As I recall what happened here was they mistranslated what the judge said and therefore published the wrong story, but in the belief that it was correct? That bit is genuine human error.
Shame about the fake interviews (though they may not have been too far from what the interviewees would have said given the chance).
http://www.blackarchi...llection/00000268.jpg
And the competition to be first with the news is even more fierce with websites that can publish stories instantly. As I recall what happened here was they mistranslated what the judge said and therefore published the wrong story, but in the belief that it was correct? That bit is genuine human error.
Shame about the fake interviews (though they may not have been too far from what the interviewees would have said given the chance).
The Guardian admitted it today to the Leveson Enquiry
Gill Phillips - their lawyer said
''The Guardian's story of 4 July 2011 was based on multiple sources and their state of knowledge at the time. Our error – as we acknowledged and corrected last December – was to have written about the cause of the deletions as a fact rather than as the belief of several people involved in the case. We regret that.''
Gill Phillips - their lawyer said
''The Guardian's story of 4 July 2011 was based on multiple sources and their state of knowledge at the time. Our error – as we acknowledged and corrected last December – was to have written about the cause of the deletions as a fact rather than as the belief of several people involved in the case. We regret that.''
Doesn't a lie consist of saying something which you know to be false or do not believe to be true? if that is so, the Guardian has not lied. It has made a staement in good faith and on the material available to it which it believed correct, A person who swore to thar would not be guilty of perjury (which is where I got the definition from, but which seems a good definition of a lie).
FredPuli, even if you broaden the definition enough to include only statements that are false, whether you know it or not, the Guardian's story still doesn't qualify as a lie.
Because it may in fact have been true. There's no evidence that it wasn't.
As I read it, Milly's phone definitely was hacked, and messages definitely were deleted. The unanswered question is whether the NOW deleted them manually, or whether the phone system deleted them automatically because they'd been read.
Because it may in fact have been true. There's no evidence that it wasn't.
As I read it, Milly's phone definitely was hacked, and messages definitely were deleted. The unanswered question is whether the NOW deleted them manually, or whether the phone system deleted them automatically because they'd been read.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.