Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Ian Price on October 04, 2011, 10:21:28 AM
-
It doesn't surprise me that two basic versions of a story would be written when the crux of the story is a verdict that hasn't yet been delivered but this is insane.
It is of course a very sad story but the imagined detail in this, well....Bravo!
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html
-
The Mail is pure filth - I despise that rag :( But this goes beyond what I would have imagined
-
Indeed. I can imagine one of their journos sitting in a bar in Perugia typing that nonsense into their laptop whilst drinking a cold one. This is nearly on a par with phone hacking IMO.
-
I love the Daily Mail because it tells me if what I'm thinking is right or wrong... It can get confusing with all the liberalism in the other media... I can sometimes become confused by "arguments" but not after I read the Mail!
God bless you Lord Rothermere and your"non-domiciled" tax free status... A TRUE BRITISH PATRIOT.
They don't like it up 'em!
:?
-
The daily fail failing so hard its become Win.
-
oh wow
-
When I see people reading the daily mail I worry that Darwin was wrong
-
They just wrote two articles so they could be uploaded as soon as the verdict came through - and then a mistranslation by a Italian journo led them to put the wrong one up.
As for the reaction quotes, if a source is unnamed and referred to as an "insider" or "close to the family" or whatever in a tabloid or local paper, most of the time it's because they don't exist.
Still, always nice to see the press make a fool of themselves.
-
Although argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, argumentum non dailymailium is perfectly valid in any english speaking chamber of debate.
-
I'm sure the Daily Heil will thoroughly investigate how this mix-up happened, and then find a way to pin the blame on some combination of gypsies, cancer or falling house prices. Probably illustrated with a picture of Pippa Middleton.
-
Although it's a bit shocking when something like this emerges, presumably it's pretty common for papers to have two versions of a story ready-written so it's ready to be published quickly.
They would've changed the specific details (I hope!), but most of what's written there would almost certainly be true had the verdict gone the other way.
In a similar way, I imagine all the papers have pre-prepared obituaries for lots of elderly celebrities - including the Queen.
-
I don't think that anyone is surprised that a couple of versions of a story may exist - it's just the prose that was used! And every detail a lie!!!
:?
-
I don't think that anyone is surprised that a couple of versions of a story may exist - it's just the prose that was used! And every detail a lie!!!
:?
Journalists, I pretty much lump them with politicians when it comes to lying crooks. I don't read papers or watch TV for this very reason (since it went 24hr 'news').
-
I'm pretty much with nfe on this.
It's amusing to see them f@ck-up but using the word "lie" about it is a bit misleading.
Like Philly says, the Queen's obituary (and I suspect a whole bunch of related editorial material, public interest stuff, etc, etc) is already written in draft form. Is that material all lies? Nope, it's the writers being ready to complete their copy on time when it's needed.
Would it be lies if this material was accidentally posted on a website or included in tomorrow's newspaper (and the old girl was still eating her boiled egg and soldiers that morning)? Probably not, or at least not in my book. It would be somewhat tasteless maybe, but I'd still be amused someone had f@cked-up that badly.
Would it be lies if someone deliberately published this stuff knowing what they were doing? I'd probably call it lies then - but on the other hand I take everything I read with a pinch of salt anyway :lol:. Most of the "facts" we read are a bunch of speculation and opinion from people with no better judgement than we have ourselves.
No, I'm convinced this Daily Mail thing was a f@ck-up, nothing else. A writer would have had at least two versions. Any writer in this arena will fail miserably (miss out on getting published) if he or she waits for the result before composing anything. When the result came in, the writer would have taken the existing draft that best fitted and then completed the piece. Looks to me like this writer did all that and then posted the wrong bluddy one :lol: - of course it's wrong and apparently contains deliberate untruths... he didn't read or review this draft at all. He was never going to use it, he probably wasn't intending to open the document and ever read it again... he spent all of his time working on the other draft!
How long was this "article" actually posted for? It sounds to me like it was taken down pretty damn quick.
Storm in a teacup... Funny though. :D
-
Although it's a bit shocking when something like this emerges, presumably it's pretty common for papers to have two versions of a story ready-written so it's ready to be published quickly.
They would've changed the specific details (I hope!), but most of what's written there would almost certainly be true had the verdict gone the other way.
In a similar way, I imagine all the papers have pre-prepared obituaries for lots of elderly celebrities - including the Queen.
I bet theres a small, secret clade of editors continually updating 'rememberance' videos and news segments for old or high risk celebrities so they can run with them as fast as possible. Especially the queen, shes top of the list.
Clearly this is because they had two articles prepared. I dont begrudge the body of multiple possible outcome articles existing, where there are known, definite possible outcomes, with details to be added as they're learned, but the incompetence of releasing the wrong one, and the blatency of the fabrications of the little personal drama comments are pathetic.
I've often said that all modern news publications and broadcasts should come with a disclaimer at the start that reads "The following is a dramatisation based on actual events", and the daily fail just released the perfect illustration of that. By removing the 'actual events' they revealed just how much dramatisiation they add. I have no doubt that while other publications are more erudite, they're little better.
-
There are almost cretinaly people that are paid to keep 'obituaries' up to date with recent event. IIRC there was something on teletext years ago about the Queen mother having died (when she hadn't). I can understand that sort of but not the whole making up of events. I struggle with films doing dramatisations of historical stuff let alone pretty much real time events!
-
...Probably illustrated with a picture of Pippa Middleton.
Too true! :)
-
Yeah but you can write an accurate obituary in advance, this was clearly total horseshite.
-
...Probably illustrated with a picture of Pippa Middleton.
Too true! :)
You often hear commentators saying things like "we get the press we deserve", "they wouldn't publish it if we didn't want to read it" and "if you don't like it you don't have to buy it" (TV equivalent: "there's a switch marked OFF").
I think there's some truth in those arguments - but it's not that we want the cr@p they feed us, we're just too apathetic to cancel a TV package, change papers or complain about content, even if we don't like it.
But sometimes the media just decide to hype something which isn't in the "public interest" at all. Pippa bloody Middleton is a great example. She goes to a wedding. She looks alright in her dress. Then suddenly we get mountains of stories about how she supposedly has the best arse in the world and they're digging up old photos of her on holiday and she's in every paper every bloody day for weeks. Was that driven by "public demand"? Would there have been a huge clamour over the lack of Pippa content if we had never seen her (or her arse) again? I don't think so. The whole thing was a media creation.
Sorry, O/T.
-
...and when people lost interest i think there was a "scandalous" story that her arse may have been surgically enhanced. bizarre.
i try to ignore all these "newspapers" and "celebrity" gossip rags. really holds no interest for me at all, except for my astonishment at so many people being wrapped up in these supposedly famous folks' lives. i've never heard of most of them, and have no clue how they came to fame. don't care either
-
Who is Pippa Middleton? I seem to recall the name, but other than that...
(I don't actually read newspapers, in case you can't tell! :lol:)
-
^ she's kate middleton's sister (the one married to prince william)
Yeah but you can write an accurate obituary in advance, this was clearly total horseshitee.
+1
-
Apparently they heard "guilty" to another charge that Ms Knox had been subject to and pressed the button rather too quickly. Apparently they were not the only ones to make the wrong assumption- I heard that the wonderful Guardian and the sizzling soar away Sun did too but didn't actually hit the button. The article was posted for around 80 seconds or so.
I have no love for any of the newspapers and this was a stupid stupid mistake and very embarrassing for those concerned because it shows that they have, erm, "obtained" their story before the event. Something the "guardians of the nation's morals" have been known to do on previous occasions.
-
Yeah but you can write an accurate obituary in advance, this was clearly total horseshitee.
Indeed - and exactly what I was trying to say above but probably failed in the explanation!
-
oh yeah, i mean i know the guardian is closer to my political bent than the mail is, but if you believe any figures or graphs you see in the guardian you're silly. Almost invariably the next day they have it in the corrections part :lol: