Dm Apology

[-SharonA-]

DM forced to apologise to Corbyn for smears.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/mail-on-sunday-forced-to-issue-correction-following-false-corbyn-smear/03/01/?fbclid=IwAR1in1xAtH2e-HmVToU_eAzZnmqJpWaPgC_ldSvk963EoREE9nLq4DSSqgQ

A little late, but the truth is out.

[-SharonA-]

Sorry this should be The Mail On Sunday.

[Bazile]

Like with so many things regarding the press - the damage has already been done .

I suspect that they knew what they printed was not entirely accurate , but considered a likely rap on the knuckles , to be nothing to worry about

[ichkeria]

Empty stable bolted and declared safe :-)

[hereIam]

Wouldn't have changed anything, he didn't stand a cat in hell's chance !

[-SharonA-]

True hereiam! But the media manipulation is wrong.

[MallyJ]

Sadly there have always been gullible people who believe every word written in the Mail on Sunday. It has increasingly become a lying rag with the only compensation being that once you have realised that it is hilarious. I cannot understand how people could believe what they wrote in the lead up to the election but some did. Perhaps not the sharpest knives in the cutlery box....

[Mozz71]

Let's be honest, no one who reads, much less believes anything written by the Mail were never going to vote Labour, just as no real Labour voter would go near that paper, unless they'd run out of loo roll.

[JimF]

Yet it seems to be the link source de choix of so many who post here!

[hereIam]

Oh come of it Sharon, the media manipulates EVERYTHING, why should Corbyn be treated any differently ? And like I said, he didn't stand a chance anyway ...

[youngmafbog]

And the Guardian would never do tit would they all you leftists?

Anyone who takes everything a paper says as gospel needs to re examine how they look at things. They are all out to make some cash one way or another.

Oh, and the MoS and the Mail are two very different beasts

[cassa333]

After an investigation, IPSO ruled the Mail on Sunday had “inaccurately reported information featured clearly within a publicly accessible policy document” in a “serious breach” of Clause 1 (accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

A lot of media is biased so no surprise there.

People tend to read media that broadly aligns with their views.

People that tend to read media that broadly aligns to their views are more likely to believe what they read.

All the above is pretty obvious.

However the inaccurate information clearly available in a publicly accessible policy document means people were at liberty to check it out themselves.

What the media knows though is that the vast majority of people don’t check out the facts and that’s what makes it more disingenuous and dishonest.

The truth can be tweeted just enough to be plausible and not enough to be wrong but can give a totally different message.

[ToraToraTora]

so all the other stuff reported about Jezza etc is presumably true then.

[sevenOP]

A Zionoviev ploy ?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EClYS4kW4AAizgd.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter