"In articles published every day we gave the impression that the Evening Standard was a quality newspaper which carefully checks its facts and considers its opinions.
This was wrong. We have never been a quality newspaper and do not carefully check our facts.
We apologise to our readers for any embarrassment caused by reading our newspaper."
Have you spotted another Evening Standard Tipp-Ex moment? Have you noticed another prime Evening Standard blooper? Have you been keeping a close eye on the workings of the Associated Mess? If so, then we here at the Tory Troll would really like to hear from you ;)
Have you spotted another Evening Standard Tipp-Ex moment? Have you noticed another prime Evening Standard blooper? Have you been keeping a close eye on the workings of the Associated Mess? If so, then we here at the Tory Troll would really like to hear from you ;)
18 comments:
Is it true that the Hate Mail and the Scum pay out fortunes in libel fees all the time? :)
Most are settled out of court with retractions like these and offers of amends. The whole process is usually too long, expensive and damaging for either party to bother.
Sounds about right, but it raises the question of why the papers talked utter shite in the first place.
I was in London yesterday, & bought the Low Standard, as I do on all my visits to the capital, for a laugh.
I bet people like researchers etc. derive a secret pleasure from being able to read the right-wing press & say it's just part of the job...
It's true. I know I do. Funnily enough Ben Goldacre admitted the same today in the Guardian.
Link
Yes, it was Goldacre that gave me the thought: him, and the people at Citizens Advice Bureau headquarters (that is why I was in London, visiting them) who admitted the same.
When right-wing bloggers boast about how many visitors they get, it always raises a smile when I consider that half those people only visited to confirm what twats they are.
Best laugh today - had to steal this - blogrolled you.
ps - presumably the Standard is not long for this world as people, given the choice between two rubbishy free papers and one rubbishy one that costs, will tend to choose one of the free ones...
Unfortunately the Daily Mail news group also own two of the rubbishy free ones, so they can spread the ad money around. Also there still seems to be a relatively big market for the sub-Daily Mail whinging and Richard-Littlejohn-lite ranting that Gilligan and his pals splurge out. I have to admit, I still read it. I try not to, and I know it's not good for me, but I just can't look away ;)
I understand the readership of the Standard is down to 5 figures and Associated Newspapers is making record losses on this scandal sheet.
It says something that you can actually look forward to reading Murdoch's Londonpaper on the way home as it actually seems more credible. Maybe the advertising world are seeing it that way, too?
Yes, I always look at any given rag to see whether the Associated Mess (great phrase!) are behind it. The free "paper" on the train was one such offender.
I stick to the Guardian, Independent & New Statesman myself. No surprises there...
Ya big bleedin' Baby
What is your point EXACTLY?
ah....Blog Owner Approval....
A bit cencorship...eh?
Never did Pinochet any harm
I must have missed his blogger years.
Perhaps he's made a few... changes, & is now posting as "Unity", having changed his views on everything :)
Any More on this Tory troll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/23/london.race
I'm just finishing off a post on it now.
Wtf does "Quality newspaper" mean anyway? It has quality? Well so does a newspaper of "Poor quality". In fact it's effectively impossible for quality not to exist and pretty ironic that a paper trying to establish it's credentials would mangle the English language in the process.
It's as inane as the reviews that say a film "Contains language", something surely true of all but the very most pretentious of art house flicks.
It's a good point. I wouldn't be too bothered if it was just the language and not the truth that got mangled though.
As it happens my own favourite warning on films is 'contains mild peril.' Quite how peril can ever be mild isn't made clear, but I doubt whether it would stop anyone from buying the film.
Post a Comment