Should Children Under 16 Be Barred From...
News1 min 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.
LOL ... crafty, crafty, crafty ... let's not go there (even though the tabloid coverage has no doubt given you a much better grasp of the facts than the Appeal Court judges, who studied the evidence for three years)
But the "anti" propaganda still rolls on ...
http://
See what it says in the first paragraph?
John Kercher ... "believes Foxy Knoxy has stolen the spotlight from his murdered daughter and continues to do so".
"Stolen" the spotlight?
Err ... for three years, she was in prison. I don't think she was controlling the press coverage from her cell.
And, since being released, apart from being interviewed when she landed back in the US, how many interviews has she given? ...
... none ... zero ... zilch ... nada ... not a single, solitary one!
So why does anyone think think that she has "stolen" the spotlight????
"Stolen" the spotlight by declining to give any interviews?
Oh yes ... because the Press say she's "stolen" the spotlight.
And, as this thread illustrates ... you can ALWAYS believe the Press, LOL.
But the "anti" propaganda still rolls on ...
http://
See what it says in the first paragraph?
John Kercher ... "believes Foxy Knoxy has stolen the spotlight from his murdered daughter and continues to do so".
"Stolen" the spotlight?
Err ... for three years, she was in prison. I don't think she was controlling the press coverage from her cell.
And, since being released, apart from being interviewed when she landed back in the US, how many interviews has she given? ...
... none ... zero ... zilch ... nada ... not a single, solitary one!
So why does anyone think think that she has "stolen" the spotlight????
"Stolen" the spotlight by declining to give any interviews?
Oh yes ... because the Press say she's "stolen" the spotlight.
And, as this thread illustrates ... you can ALWAYS believe the Press, LOL.
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.