Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

When do journalists get the green light for articles to be published? **Title edited by MNHQ**

35 replies

lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:14

I'm pretty sure I only got to read it because I'm in Sydney so it's early Saturday morning here.

Interesting piece which was obviously supposed to be the weekend lead, and when I went back to it to find a link in the article, the whole thing had been withdrawn.

If you're publishing something that contentious, surely you check first? Journalist must be gutted.

Does anyone know, is a legal department automatically involved in revealing stories, or do they just expect you to have done your background?!

OP posts:
ChequerBoard · 03/09/2021 22:15

Could you be any more cryptic?

SpindleWhorl · 03/09/2021 22:16

Can you give a general idea of the subject area and the type of publication?

Shirleyphallus · 03/09/2021 22:18

Well obviously everyone is only here to find the juicy gossip

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

caughtinanet · 03/09/2021 22:18

What was it? An Australian scandal or something from the UK?

Jessaas · 03/09/2021 22:20

FFS.

lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:23

Sorry, I actually meant to put that first, it was just an interview with Jolie, which will either make you sneer, or make you want to know what she said.

It wasn't about BP directly, but I'm guessing that's why it was pulled.

Just baffled, given that it was given top billing, and was "most read" , why they hadn't checked in advance that it was OK.

OP posts:
lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:25

Wow, people are really easily passed off aren't they?! Would you like me to get the title changedHmmGrin

OP posts:
BlushingBrightly · 03/09/2021 22:25

Maybe they'd cleared it with their own lawyers, but then his objected on publication?

ChequerBoard · 03/09/2021 22:27

Oh. I thought you meant an actual newsworthy story, not some celeb twaddle.

I expect his expensive lawyers will have been granted an injunction an the story has therefore been pulled.

NightCzar · 03/09/2021 22:28

Obv that link isn't particularly reputable but it does contain a link to the Guardian story which has been pulled.

lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:32

But they were talking about the US not following UN on child rights etc, anything specific was excluded because they're still in a legal case.. so how do they not know what's ok and what isn't? How can you just get an injunction if there's nothing new?

I'm genuinely interested in the process, even if it means being patronised about celeb twaddle.

OP posts:
lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:34

@NightCzar - yes, I wouldn't even have seen it if it wasn't front and centre in the Guardian, which I suppose is why I thought it would be more rigorously checked before pub.

OP posts:
lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:39

Thanks MNSmile

OP posts:
Fizzgigg · 03/09/2021 22:39

It would have been checked before publication. Anything like this would go through legal before being published. That's not to say that someone can't challenge it's publication afterwards resulting in it either temporarily or permanently being pulled though. I've seen articles be published and cleared by legal but knowing there was every chance it would be challenged afterwards. They were usually proper news rather than celeb stuff though.

MilesOfSand · 03/09/2021 22:40

Looks like it’s in the UK print issue tomorrow?

When do journalists get the green light for articles to be published? **Title edited by MNHQ**
NoSquirrels · 03/09/2021 22:42

Presumably it’s in the printed editions? Those won’t have been pulled so the story was still cleared by legal to publish. Then something cease-and-desist worthy has happened post pub.

NoSquirrels · 03/09/2021 22:44

@MilesOfSand

Looks like it’s in the UK print issue tomorrow?
Could be a most excellent Guardian tactic to get their print sales up! Grin
Fizzgigg · 03/09/2021 22:45

May have been in an early edition but if it's been pulled online it'll be gone from most editions published tonight. Only first edition has printed by now and there's probably 2-4 more to be printed tonight given it's a Saturday paper.

Fizzgigg · 03/09/2021 22:46

Strike that - just saw from that screenshot that the interview is in Weekend magazine which definitely would've printed earlier in the week!

mswales · 03/09/2021 22:47

Yes of course everything is checked very carefully by lawyers! Absolutely a standard part of the process. Not just for ethical reasons but for financial ones...
Obviously the legal positions/levels of risk aversions that tabloid lawyers have may be different to broadsheets but all the papers and broadcasters have in house legal teams yes.

lborgia · 03/09/2021 22:58

That's what I assumed @mswales, that's why I was so puzzled that it was gone that fast.

Being alerted to the article, finding a judge, getting an injunction, and in 2 hours must mean it was a strong case against? Bizarre.

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 03/09/2021 23:03

Being alerted to the article, finding a judge, getting an injunction, and in 2 hours…

Suspect it’s more the case that they’ve been trying to get it pulled since they learned about it - probably much earlier in the week, it’s in the Weekend supplement and the planning for that is well in advance - and they’ve only just been granted the injunction (if that’s the case) hence print version being out there and they’re doing damage limitation on not having it be able to be linked and shared.

donquixotedelamancha · 03/09/2021 23:07

I wouldn't even have seen it if it wasn't front and centre in the Guardian, which I suppose is why I thought it would be more rigorously checked before pub.

YABU, it's the Guardian. The Daily Star has better fact checking.

mowly77 · 03/09/2021 23:07

Literally every word of any newspaper is legalled. For the reasons outlined by @mswales above. Very interesting! Will be buying a print copy