The Mirror is at it again
- Thread starter Gonloopy
- Start date
Diche
Veteran
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 6,163
I got the Paul Mottram reply today 'The article has now been set out as "claim" and "counter claim" with regard to the issue and thus distinguished between comment conjecture and fact as allowed for under the Editors' Code Of Practice' and bounced it straight back to IPSO.
To suggest that changing a publication after it's release makes everything ok makes a mockery of the Editors Code of Practice. To accept this would be to accept that the Press could publish any old lies that took their fancy in order to attract readers and gain advertising revenue, and as long as they altered the online copy days after the fact they would be in compliance with the code.
I cannot seriously believe the Mirror expected people to accept that as a valid explanation. News is News on the day and at the time it is released, if it were something people went back to to look for updates it would be called OLDS!!
To suggest that changing a publication after it's release makes everything ok makes a mockery of the Editors Code of Practice. To accept this would be to accept that the Press could publish any old lies that took their fancy in order to attract readers and gain advertising revenue, and as long as they altered the online copy days after the fact they would be in compliance with the code.
I cannot seriously believe the Mirror expected people to accept that as a valid explanation. News is News on the day and at the time it is released, if it were something people went back to to look for updates it would be called OLDS!!
Similar threads
