pesco at September 24th, 2013 12:46 — #1
aliktren at September 24th, 2013 13:04 — #2
Instant childish reaction to LOL, but that is actually really, really terrible.
micah at September 24th, 2013 13:17 — #3
In their defense, it WAS part of the Whoresley show.
gilbertwham at September 24th, 2013 13:18 — #4
We need only one piece of legislation to encourage journalistic integrity & proper fact-checking: ALL retractions and apologies are required to be printed on the front page, above the first story.
daneel at September 24th, 2013 13:21 — #5
spunkytws at September 24th, 2013 14:13 — #6
While they may have good reasons for removing the original article--such as not wanting to risk someone missing the correction--such a removal always strikes me as "We did something stupid, now we're trying to cover it up". It's great that they've taken responsibility and posted a correction, but, in the digital format, it doesn't seem like it would be hard to correct the article itself. And they could add a "We regret the earlier error" at the end.
Call me nitpicky but I remember several years ago when Elsevier was caught deleting articles from some of its electronic archives. They had good reasons--some of the articles were plagiarized, for instance--but these were digital copies of the print publications, and there was no explanation why, when a patron would click on an article title in the table of contents, they'd get "404 not found". It took a court order to stop them. It was a solemn reminder of how tempting it must be for some publishers to rewrite history.
therealme at September 24th, 2013 14:13 — #7
Given the UK's libel laws I don't know if the newspaper made an error, or if the person in question really is or was a prostitute at one time, but they paper isn't willing to press the point.
imb at September 24th, 2013 14:40 — #8
marilove at September 24th, 2013 14:42 — #9
It was better the first time around. NIPPLES.
trisaneldritch at September 24th, 2013 15:38 — #10
Oh come on man, in the case of Mr Horsley, it was a pretty forgivable mistake to make:
ashleyyakeley at September 24th, 2013 20:29 — #11
Well that was uncomfortably informative.
brainspore at September 24th, 2013 21:55 — #12
I was reminded of that uncomfortable conversation from Meet the Parents:
*I* have nipples, Frank. Could you milk me?
terryborder1 at September 25th, 2013 07:08 — #13
It seems to me that there was an equal chance of her being called a horse.
mcgreens at September 25th, 2013 09:41 — #14
Mark Thomas's People's Manifesto had a suggestion that all corrections and retractions be printed at the same size and in the same position as the original story. I thought it was a brilliant idea then and I still do now.
pesco at September 29th, 2013 12:46 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.