tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post1149614934159585003..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: Sun admits Al-Qaeda didn't threaten Coronation StreetMacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-20725703956898462332011-01-03T21:31:29.836+00:002011-01-03T21:31:29.836+00:00A newspaper may belong to a business but the paper...A newspaper may belong to a business but the paper itself should put truth, integrity and respect before any profits otherwise it's just taking its readers for a ride. <br /><br />I know some may disagree but if paper XYZ prints a lie on it's front page in massive letters then they should follow up with a retraction on the front page in massive letters. <br /><br />It'd make them think a bit more before going to print, especially if there was a finanical penalty involved in such bad journalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-53929219216969149372011-01-03T11:34:28.187+00:002011-01-03T11:34:28.187+00:00Anonymous (00:21) - Indeed they are. But consider ...Anonymous (00:21) - Indeed they are. But consider how many extra readers may have bought newspapers after being taken in by an incorrect original headline. <br /><br />I didn't say they should admit they were wrong as their main headline, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't have found space for that apology on the front page. <br /><br />The PCC is constantly telling us apologies aren't buried and that they appear on the same page or earlier compared to the original. Yet this almost never happens with front page errors. I think 'same page or earlier' should be set in stone by the Code.MacGuffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-12827229293838802202011-01-03T00:21:00.137+00:002011-01-03T00:21:00.137+00:00"the apology was on 'page 2 and online..."the apology was on 'page 2 and online'. Yet the original was rather more prominent than that"<br /><br />To be fair, a newspaper is still a business, and putting "Sorry we were wrong" on the front page isn't exactly going to attract any casual readers is it? Beyond that, we should be happy its not on the 34th page in between a load of adverts for comparison websites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-67327571654432807732011-01-02T20:15:47.576+00:002011-01-02T20:15:47.576+00:00Made it across the pond to the "Huffington Po...Made it across the pond to the "Huffington Post"<br /><br /> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/the-sun-admits-publishing_n_802213.html#commentsPaul UKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-88954619979900154382011-01-02T15:13:11.527+00:002011-01-02T15:13:11.527+00:00I knew it was false just by the way it was laid ou...I knew it was false just by the way it was laid out it was false i'm pretty sure most people knew as wellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-63199349176016404182011-01-02T11:49:05.381+00:002011-01-02T11:49:05.381+00:00Ha! Ian Beales!Ha! Ian Beales!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com