tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post9193609637821545303..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: 'I didn’t find the card'MacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-56956125313978366922013-01-04T10:43:22.726+00:002013-01-04T10:43:22.726+00:00I know it's a very late comment but if the Mai...I know it's a very late comment but if the Mail had checked her twitter timeline at the time they would have seen that:<br />1) she didn't findf it<br />2) she was at home in the US recovering from surgery.<br />What ever happened to research?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-81317403215068171282012-12-11T16:31:13.038+00:002012-12-11T16:31:13.038+00:00Thanks Anonymous and Matt - I have added a short u...Thanks Anonymous and Matt - I have added a short update to the end of the post. MacGuffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-58928927160427872522012-12-11T11:33:05.681+00:002012-12-11T11:33:05.681+00:00Good spot Anonymous - so, in fairness to the Mail ...Good spot Anonymous - so, in fairness to the Mail (!!), it looks like they mistakenly identified Johnson as the author of the tweet and ran the story without waiting for her reply - because all they wanted from her was to know where she'd bought it, which they would have added to the story had they received her response in time. Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-7424803825666339962012-12-11T00:21:11.346+00:002012-12-11T00:21:11.346+00:00She should sue the Mail for libel, purely on the g...She should sue the Mail for libel, purely on the grounds that the paper maliciously disregarded the truth. Even if she only ends up with 1 pound in damages, it will be worth it: vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-38339020988519083702012-12-10T23:27:42.696+00:002012-12-10T23:27:42.696+00:00Hold on, the article was published at 19:37 on 8th...Hold on, the article was published at 19:37 on 8th December. The reply Johnson sent wasn't until the early hours of 9th.<br /><br />So, it's not so much that The Fail printed something they'd been told wasn't true - it's that they printed something without waiting to see whether it was true or not and now - I've just checked - the same incorrect information is still up there.<br /><br />'We don't need regulation, you can trust is to tell the truth,' say cheap little newspaper editors, lying en masse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com