If you ever needed proof that the Daily Fail is a work of fiction...

[DaisySteiner]

www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/

Am I being naive to be shocked that they would lie in quite so much detail?!

I'm less shocked that they printed an inaccurate story than I am they had someone on the ground who didn't seem to understand what the judge actually said. If you've got an Italian Correspondent, it would seem a basic requirement that they understand italian...

Cogito
If you watch the video, (will search for link in a moment) the reporter stated, "Amanda Knox is guilty... of defamation..."

Think it was that hesitation that did it.

Inaccurate is one thing, but the details that they plain made up is another.

video here

I was moved to tears watching that, I cannot imagine how Amanda Knox must feel.

I don't know how web-pages work really. Is it common practice that they have two stories prepped to go live and the second the word 'guilty' is heard they hit the enter key? I know, for example, that news organisations have obits written and ready to go for various elderly notable figures... didn't someone report that the Queen Mum had died on the strength of a bit of incorrect info?

Having two different stories ready to go is one thing. Embellishing (sp?) them with false reports of someones reaction or comments is quite another.

And not being able to understand Italian is pretty dire too.

Cogito
according to the journos I follow on Twitter, it is normal practice. In the fast moving web news age, they want in first with the scoop.

Having it ready is one thing, but filling in the gaps with details of what Knox and the Meredith family did is another.

And yet you were reading it at 6.30 am.

The 'filling the gaps' aspect is no more than I'd expect from the Daily Mail... their stories always look pre-written in a 'don't confuse me with the facts' type of way :)

Well, 7.30 am for me as I am an hour ahead.

Which is pretty irrelevant, as this thread is about the fact that they published lies.

True, Cogito, but it is not often you get it confirmed in such an embarrassing (for the DM) fashion.

You're right, it's rare that a newspaper makes such an obvious howler but I've seen maybe not quite so volte-face corrections before between first editions and subsequent ones. Most of the time with the Daily Mail the only confirmation you need that they are printing rubbish is to read a story about which you have some knowledge. Eye-wateringly bad.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes anything they read in the Daily Mail or any of the tabloids for that matter.

Well, I certainly view stories in them (not that I read them often!) with a degree of scepticism and imagine that some of the quotes may be out of context, but I do still find it surprising that they would just make details and quotes up completely out of nothing.

They are always getting hammered for lifting stories off the American newswires and publishing them on line without editing the language for a British audience.

I do understand that in the fast-moving news world of today, media outlets have to prepare as much in advance for a story and then drop in the details as they happen. However, the DM piece was just a complete work of fiction - embarrassing how they described scenes in great detail - that clearly didn't happen.

I'm not entirely convinced that many readers of DM, or that many people in general are too bothered about accuracy in reporting, sadly. I get the feeling that many folks just search out stories with "slants" that reflect what they already believe about something to reinforce their perspective of the world. If they run up against something they don't like, they either gloss over it or contribute something contrary in the reader reply section.

I think it is actually important to read a range of news sources, including those with editorial policies you don't like or don't agree with. I often do that if there is a story emerging that I'm interested in - getting the BBC take, the Guardian take, the DM take, the Sun take, etc. The truth of course is always somewhere in the middle of all that (or maybe not there at all of course!) I think it is important though to get an idea of what other people are reading and absorbing about news stories - not just read what you think to be most accurate or what reflects your own views best. If nothing else, it gives you an idea of where other people are "coming from."

If it helps, I have some experience in these matters.
What would have probably been happening is the Fail and all the other papers, will have basically been waiting on tenterhooks against the deadline with two stories ready to go - one guilty, one not guilty. They would have probably held the presses back for a while at great cost, and so the minute they heard what they thought was the verdict (and I imagine they were watching Sky for it as it's the fastest news channel) they would been all like 'go go go !' - and then very quickly ' fuck fuck fuck!' and altered it, but not before it appeared online incorrectly.

I did hear somewhere the incorrect story was actually onlu online at the Fail for literally 90 secs but in that time someone got a screengrab - not sure if thats true.

I'm still angry at the Fail about a stupid story from Sunday so I'm not buying it for now (until I got back on that vow in a few weeks probably!!)