An article on 13 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures. In fact, he died of natural causes. We apologise for this mistaken report and for the consequent distress caused to Mr Hoskins's family.
Seven weeks later, the Mail has published this:
An article on 14 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures. In fact, he died of natural causes. We apologise for this mistaken report and for the consequent distress caused to Mr Hoskins's family.
And the Mirror this:
A headline on 14 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures, although the article made it clear that no cause of death had yet been established. In fact, Mr Hoskins died of natural causes and, contrary to our report, was accompanied on the trip by a friend. We apologise to Mr Hoskins's family for any distress caused.
It is not clear why it took the Mail seven weeks longer to publish the same wording as the Telegraph.
But why did the Mirror say that someone had 'frozen to death' while also admitting 'no cause of death had yet been established'?
Posts
It took the Mail 7 weeks longer because thats how long it took them to copy the apology from the Telegraph word for word
ReplyDelete