#1 By: pesco, September 24th, 2013 12:46
#2 By: Aliktren, September 24th, 2013 13:04
Instant childish reaction to LOL, but that is actually really, really terrible.
#3 By: micah, September 24th, 2013 13:17
In their defense, it WAS part of the Whoresley show.
#4 By: gilbert wham, September 24th, 2013 13:18
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.
#5 By: daneel, September 24th, 2013 13:21
#6 By: Christopher Waldrop, September 24th, 2013 14:13
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.
#7 By: Matt Bruensteiner, September 24th, 2013 14:13
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.
#8 By: IMB, September 24th, 2013 14:40
#9 By: marilove, September 24th, 2013 14:42
It was better the first time around. NIPPLES.
#10 By: Tristan Eldritch , September 24th, 2013 15:38
Oh come on man, in the case of Mr Horsley, it was a pretty forgivable mistake to make:
#11 By: Ashley Yakeley, September 24th, 2013 20:29
Well that was uncomfortably informative.
#12 By: Tim, September 24th, 2013 21:55
I was reminded of that uncomfortable conversation from Meet the Parents:
*I* have nipples, Frank. Could you milk me?
#13 By: Terry_Border, September 25th, 2013 07:08
It seems to me that there was an equal chance of her being called a horse.
#14 By: McGreens, September 25th, 2013 09:41
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.
#15 By: pesco, September 29th, 2013 12:46
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.