Thursday, 30 September 2010

Sorry we said that was you (cont.)

Another complaint about the Daily Mail:

Ms Anna Begum complained to the Press Complaints Commission through Edwards Duthie Solicitors of London that an article which referred to claims of sexual harassment at the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was inaccurate, misleading and intrusive, particularly in regard to the use of her photograph without consent. In fact, the complainant had never worked at the ODA and was not the woman in question.

And here's what the paper published a few weeks ago:

This picture accompanying an article concerning the Olympics (November 7 2009) mistakenly showed the wrong woman. We are happy to clarify that the Anna Begum pictured had no connection with this story and we apologise to Ms Begum for the distress and embarrassment caused.

Oh dear.

Hopefully the ten-month gap between publication and apology was because Ms Begum had not seen the photo straight away, and was not more needless feet-dragging by the Mail when faced with a complaint.


  1. "Woman Eats Desert" - now that is a story that would be worth reading. Whether or not the desert had a glass and a half of full cream milk in it or not.

  2. If there was 'needless foot-dragging', then this observation is valid. If indeed, the lady didn't see the article for a while, then the observation is as pointless as the Hendricks yoghurt-eating report. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? This blog is forever castigating the tabloids for not doing adequate research, and yet is prepared to post assumptive material itself?

    A bit too keen to stick the boot in, in my opinion.

  3. Anonymous - If I had specifically said this was definitely a case of the Mail dragging its feet, your comment may be valid. Since I didn't, it's ridiculous.

    A bit too keen to stick the boot in, indeed.

  4. Seems to be a perfectly adequate inclusion in the context of this blog...and how many tabloids that (my fellow "Anonymous" seems to defend would dare to suggest there might be a legitimate and valid reason as evidenced here by the line "Hopefully, the ten-month gap..". That doesn't feel assumptive at all given that it is a fair comment on the Mail's history of foot dragging and unwillingness to engage with the PCC on amending false stories published on a regular basis by this paper that reports on "stars" eating food" or "desert". I think more than fair comment...

  5. Your comment is clearly insinuating that the Mail was dragging its feet. If you were indeed unsure of the circumstances, then you wouldn't have included it in the first place. The further inclusion of a link to a bona fide example of delaying tactics is highly indicative of your stance.

    Are we to expect that a blog that consistently hammers tabloids for being ambivalent and inaccurate, suggestive and unfair, presents it's case in a highly suggestive and ambivalent manner, using a non-definitive stance as mitigation? On balance of probabilities, my Anonymous friend above may be right, but a blog such as this shouldn't descend to the assumptive depths of the tabloids they seek to decry, however small those probabilities are.

    I offer apologies if I came across as argumentative - I was merely making an observation, which presumably you have no objection to. However, I've noticed you have a hair trigger when it comes to taking offence on even mildly critical comments, Mr MacG - disagree by all means, but to call me 'ridiculous' is not only harsh, but somewhat rude.

  6. Anonymous 13:19 - Thanks for the comment.

    Anonymous 17:27 - I am glad you admit the other anonymous comment may be right. The link was pointing to a recent case where the Mail did drag its feet and I clearly said I hoped this wasn't the explanation for the delay in this case. I clearly did not insinuate what you claim.

  7. I respectfully disagree.


Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.