In today's @DailyMailUK. @IpsoNews rules that the front page article with the headline "Another Human Rights Fiasco" had "serious and significant" errors. It was inaccurate and breached the Editor's Code. Mail forced to publish this ruling, with a reference on today's front page. 
"The breach was serious and led to publication of seriously misleading information on an important subject. The misleading information was in a prominent position both in the article and in newspaper as a whole, and it substantially changed the meaning of the article": @IpsoNews
So @DailyMailUK's front page included the claim that he was an insurgent caught with a bomb. But didn't then say that a judge found that this allegation was "pure fiction". @IpsoNews found "the repetition of these serious allegations ... seriously misrepresented the judgment".
So here are:
- The original front page
- Following my complaint, @IpsoNews's decision that the article was "seriously misleading" and contained "clearly serious errors"
- Today's front page with a reference to the ruling
- The ruling as published in today's @DailyMailUK
- The original front page
- Following my complaint, @IpsoNews's decision that the article was "seriously misleading" and contained "clearly serious errors"
- Today's front page with a reference to the ruling
- The ruling as published in today's @DailyMailUK
"Committee considers front page corrections, or references to corrections, should only be required in the most serious cases. Committee closely analysed the particular features of this case, in considering whether to require additional remedy to the breach of Clause 1": @IpsoNews
Following my complaints about this front page, @DailyMailUK has said "a major internal investigation was conducted and strongly worded disciplinary notes sent to seven senior members of staff, making clear that if such errors were to happen again, their careers would be at risk".
"Both errors were serious and significant. The previously published corrections did not directly acknowledge the errors, and were not prominent enough. The Committee required publication of this adjudication as a remedy, with a reference on the front page": @IpsoNews
"Claim that the man received “£33,000, because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”, was inaccurate. As Daily Mail knew, only £3,300 was for unlawful detention; remaining £30,000 was for ill treatment. This was a further failure to take care over accuracy": @IpsoNews
Given front pages and other stories like this about human rights, not surprising that @DailyMailUK and other tabloids aren't too keen to have to publicly discuss what they publish. Eg., they refused to appear before @HumanRightsCtte.
See thread at
See thread at
See @IpsoNews's complete ruling at at ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-re….
Ipso decided that this @DailyMailUK front page was seriously inaccurate and in breach of the Editor's Code. Also that, despite my complaint, the Daily Mail failed to appreciate just how serious the errors were.
Ipso decided that this @DailyMailUK front page was seriously inaccurate and in breach of the Editor's Code. Also that, despite my complaint, the Daily Mail failed to appreciate just how serious the errors were.
"@DailyMailUK runs front page IPSO ruling on inaccuracies in Iraq compensation claim report as senior staff told making similar errors again would 'put careers at risk'".
pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-run…
pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-run…
"The Daily Mail has published a front-page reference to a correction and issued disciplinary notes to senior staff after falsely claiming an Iraqi man who won compensation from the British government was an insurgent who had been found with a bomb".
theguardian.com/media/2018/jul…
theguardian.com/media/2018/jul…
Great to see the correction being shared far and wide. Even if it still won't reach eveb one-thousandth of the number of people who would have seen the original "seriously misleading" front page.
Valid question I think, @IpsoNews. So, why was the full ruling not on the front page like the original inaccurate story was? Really no logical reason for this.
But why is correction not on front page? Recently, Parliament's @HumanRightsCtte said "We agree with Shoaib Khan that “[i]t is not unreasonable that if an inaccurate article can be published on the front page, then the correction should appear there too".
And here's a @DailyMailUK
writer actually lecturing others on "fake news". And wondering why there is so much fake news about.
*Sigh*
writer actually lecturing others on "fake news". And wondering why there is so much fake news about.
*Sigh*
So @DailyMailUK writer and Michael Gove wife, @WestminsterWAG, is wondering "why there is so much #FakeNews around?".
Hmm... yes, a complete mystery...
Hmm... yes, a complete mystery...
Lots of people asking the same question, @IpsoNews. Great that a correction is published and referenced on the front page, but why is the correction itself not on the front page?
Why should an inaccurate front page not result in a front-page correction?
Why should an inaccurate front page not result in a front-page correction?
You will all be happy/relieved/ecstatic to know that I do intend to stop tweeting about this Daily Mail correction some time today. Thank you to everyone who shared.
& special thanks to anyone who has not blocked/muted/unfollowed me, despite my dozens of tweets about one thing!
& special thanks to anyone who has not blocked/muted/unfollowed me, despite my dozens of tweets about one thing!
I know I have, annoyingly, repeatedly tweeted just different versions of the same thing; just an attempt to spread the word.
Millions of people will have seen the inaccurate, misleading front page. But, now we have a correction, we'd be lucky if even just a few thousand saw it.
Millions of people will have seen the inaccurate, misleading front page. But, now we have a correction, we'd be lucky if even just a few thousand saw it.
