Daily mail completely fabricates whole story.

Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Posts
8,201
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Posts
16,030
Location
UK
I'm shocked that you are accusing a reputable and popular newspaper of not fully researching its articles. The DM is staffed by consummate professionals and I for one am sure that they would never let anything of low quality make it to print.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Nov 2003
Posts
14,034
Location
Surrey, by the river
Mailwatch complain on a regular basis about Richard Littlejohn making stuff up. The PCC's response is always 'Yes the article is a complete tissue of lies, but reads of the column should understand that some total BS may be required in order to generate discussion on the subject'.

So there you go, the PCC says it's OK to lie so why not just make up whole stories.

Yesterday the Mail carried an opinion piece by Liz Jones calling for the banning of teaching sport in schools as no-one used it in their adult lives, no-one really enjoyed it and it excluded those who were not very good.

It's a little bundle of insanity in one easy to digest daily publication.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Jul 2009
Posts
674
Location
Finsbury Park
Though one of the best ones in recent memory was the Amanda Knox verdict. Where they published the wrong story entirely... a guilty verdict... with completely fabricated sound bites and quotes from lawyers. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/n...es-inquiry-into-guilty-amanda-knox-gaffe.html

I think the Guardian also published an incorrect story on the Knox verdict, citing her as guilty. The same thing - they had prepared an alternative just in case and published in error.

I don't think they went as far in making stuff up as the Daily Mail though (who, if I recall, had invented quotes from the prosecution and speculated on the reaction of her family in the gallery, etc.).
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2009
Posts
2,566
Location
Bucks
Hold on, the target audience of the Daily Mail is reactionaries who desire to be maintained in a state of apoplectic outrage.
True or untrue, it doesn't matter, the purpose is not to inform but to incite.

To avoid confusion I propose a disclaimer, something like 'any resemblance to actual persons or places, living or dead, is unintentional and should not be inferred'. This should be compulsory for newspapers that can be proved to have less than 90% truth in their content.
 
Back
Top Bottom