Are they factually wrong or providing a slanted view in this article?
back
2 comments
In the Amanda Knox case they wrote two stories, one to run if she lost and one if she won. The in case she lost story included quotes in reaction to her losing and a description of her reaction to hearing the verdict. The story was written before the quotes it includes were (it claimed) said. They accidentally ran it when she won demonstrating that they completely invent quotes. This is not the only instance they've been caught completely manufacturing quotes.
Everyone knows that news articles can be selective in how they choose to report, and that therefore they should rely on multiple sources. This is bad but not a fatal error. If a news agency completely invents quotes that destroys the fundamental trust that makes it possible to build on flawed sourcing.
> The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail
> The [incorrect] article ...was live for 90 seconds
> [The incorrect article] included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"
> It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher "remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family".
> The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance
> It had published an online apology and explanation to readers; published the correct verdict in print the following day; launched an immediate internal inquiry (and subsequently changed its practices regarding such 'set and hold' stories); and also disciplined the person responsible for the error.
> Although the PCC recognised that the newspaper had acted swiftly and proportionately to correct the breach of the editors' code - and acknowledged that the story had only been live for a short period of time - it nonetheless remained "particularly concerned" about other aspects of the report, most particularly the fictitious account of what had happened in the courtroom.
> The attempt to present contemporaneous reporting of events in such a manner was "clearly not acceptable".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc...
I'm no fan of the Daily Mail in particular or their political leanings in general, but I don't think you're being fair here. It was live for 90 whole seconds and you wrote almost 400 words about how it's the worst thing ever? I agree that they should use Lorem Ipsum style filler text until they have real quotes, but preparing two versions of stories is extremely common. Most news outlets have a stack of "in case of death" stories on file for every possible celebrity or public figure. They even wrote one in case the Apollo 1 astronauts died.
"IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER": https://www.archives.gov/files/presidential-libraries/events...
The issue isn't that they wrote two stories. The issue isn't that people may have been deceived by the wrong story being up for a few seconds.
The issue is that people have accused them of completely fabricating quotes for decades, and this was conclusive proof of the practice because the quotes in it could never have been said. This would be if the in case of moon disaster speech included a statement from the widow of one of the astronauts saying it was all worth it for science.
How is it not fair? This episode shows that any quotes in a Daily Mail story are probably completely fabricated, and that you can't trust anything in there to be the truth and not complete fiction.
> that you can't trust anything in there to be the truth and not complete fiction
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd say the same about literally any news outlet on the planet, though.
I completely disagree: lots of other news outlets have not ruined their reputation by printing outright falsehoods intentionally. There's a huge difference between some bias (which is completely unavoidable, everything is "biased" because someone has to choose what to print and what not to), and fabricating total lies.
Lots of other news outlets have not ruined their reputation by _getting caught_ printing outright falsehoods intentionally. Trust no one.
None of that has anything to do with this article though.
My entire argument is that The Daily Mail is so uniquely bad in a specific way that they shouldn't be used as sourcing for anything.
Probably. I'm not going to waste my time reading or fact checking something from them.
If it's an interesting topic find a trustworthy source to post.