Being both very small and right next to page three, it's unlikely many Star readers would have noticed it.
They probably didn't have much difficulty spotting the original article on 24 February, however:
Is this really what the Press Complaints Commission means by 'due prominence'?
(Roy Greenslade considers whether newspapers should mention that a correction has been brokered by the PCC.)
To add insult to injury, the "correction" itself is sheer sophistry.
ReplyDelete"Happy to accept her denial" isn't actually the same as saying that they admit the story is untrue, either, is it?
Would it be reasonable for the PCC to specify, in accordance with the 'due prominence' requirement mentioned in the code, that apologies should be printed in the same font size (and perhaps on the same page) as the erroneous statement was printed?
ReplyDeleteAside from being hilarious, it would hopefully result in a little less weasliness.
I love the fact they make an apology, hide it, and then accuse her of lying at the end!
ReplyDeleteIt would be lovely if apologies and corrections had to be published as prominently as the original story, but it won't make much difference to readers who will continue to believe the bollocks they were fed in the first place. Ben Goldacre in the Guardian reported on this phenomena a couple of weeks back.
ReplyDelete