More Laughable Lies To The Leveson Enquiry

[joggerjayne]

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)

[joggerjayne]

Oops ... lost a bit of text from first paragraph.

Well, I think you'll get the gist.

[mrs_overall]

Journalists have never let the truth get in the way of a good story

[joggerjayne]

Evidently not!

[sunny-dave]

Surely 'ethical Daily Mail journalist' is the ultimate oxymoron ?

[baza]

todays newspapers are tomorrows chip wrappers, or a..e wipes if you cannot afford andrex.

[douglas9401]

Maybe more accurately "many journalists........." mrs_o.

[mrs_overall]

I'm sure you are right douglas, it's just that I have yet to meet one who has not at some time been economical with the truth

[jno]

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).

[toalisi]

The Mail is not alone in printing 'lies'.

The Guardian, much loved by the literati, made the claim, which helped kick of Leveson, that News Of The World journalists had deleted the messages from Millie Dowler's mobile. This was an outright lie!

[jomifl]

That was the 'daily' mail I presume. They do say 'you couldn't make it up' but obviously you can :-)

[jno]

er, no it wasn't, toalisi. They don't know whether it was true or not. That doesn't make it a lie, any more than it makes it true. Messages were deleted but the evidence of who did it has been lost.

[toalisi]

Jno

The Guardian headline from the 2nd July 2011 reads-

'Exclusive - Paper deleted missing schoolgirl's messages, giving family false hope'

Couldn't be clearer could it!

[jno]

toalisi, what do you think a "lie" is?

It's something that's not true.

You don't know if this is true or not; neither do I, neither does the Guardian. So if you call it a lie, you're every bit as unreliable as anyone else.

Unless you've got some proof you've been withholding from Leveson?

[toalisi]

I'm disappointed you have resorted to sarcasm.

The Guardian didn't qualify their statement in any way. They said the paper (NOW) deleted the messages of a missing schoolgirl giving the family false hope that she was still alive.

[jno]

toalisi, I'm not being sarcastic.

I'm asking you: do you have evidence for your claim that the Guardian story was untrue?

[toalisi]

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.''

[jno]

the Guardian admitted nothing of the sort - read your quote again. They did not say it was a lie. What's your evidence that it was?

[FredPuli43]

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).

[jno]

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.

[ludwig]

They reported as fact something that they didn't know to be factual - they just believed it to be. Not quite a lie, but it's a slippery slope, at the bottom of which is .. the Daily Mail.