Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

But it doesn't help when people such as you, who tend to speak with authority here, overexaggerates for effect - and it gets swallowed not challenged

Not sure it does get swallowed by the majority of our small cohort anymore. ?A recent survey found? just doesn?t cut it with me, looks like it doesn?t with others now

[ramAnag]

Indeed RA, but then I guess that depends upon whether one holds the view that a paper which regularly publishes inaccurate, misleading views is being a touch hypocritical when attacking the BBC or if your more concerned with nit picking on details and ignoring the basic premise?

Of course if said person has a track record of being pedantic and ignoring the main issue, then its quite easy to reach a conclusion.

This seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. I wasn’t commenting on either the Telegraph or GP’s defence of it. I was just attempting to provide clarification over the four publications MA raised awareness of yesterday.

[ramAnag]

Having read through the back and forth, one question, and it's a simple one, comes to mind and it's one I'd like both Swale and GP to address:

Has The Telegraph placed 100 (ish) retractions/corrections?

I’m neither Swale nor GP, but your question seems to me to be the heart of the matter and, YES, they have.

[swaledale]

When the Telegraph are found to be in the wrong, and then partially only, over the course of a year (and from what data is available much the same in previous years) out of countless numbers of column miles, then no. No one is perfect and pointing out oversights in others is just part of dog eating dog commercial in fighting. If there had been upheld complaints as you first suggested I'd agree with you. But there were 3 and non of them fully upheld. That's not a bad success rate - nor is the BBC's for that matter


In many ways it's good to see different components of the media ratting each other out. That way lies do not persist across the industry that could easily get together and cover up falsehoods. But in the end, there is noone without sin who can throw stones at anyone else. But it doesn't help when people such as you, who tend to speak with authority here, overexaggerates for effect - and it gets swallowed not challenged

Well the quote wasn't Sam Bright, but a guy who exposed the litany of false and biased reporting by the Torygraph over years regarding environmental issues and climate change. This included numerous articles which had to be corrected due to the misquoting of facts.

I can see you fail to recognise that the Torygraph, a paper that has always been solidly conservative, but used to have a reputation for at least being factual has become nothing more than a right wing propaganda machine pumping out lies and misinformation. Thats a known fact and a cursory read of many resources would demonstrate that. Unlike you I don't think media sources which do this are, a good thing or to be welcomed, but I guess in a post truth society who cares about facts?

As for the corrections, in the same recording period, the BBC, which is a vastly bigger and more complex organisation had to do 33 corrections, whilst the Torygraph had to publish 113. These corrections were not ordered b IPSOS, but as a result of challenges from others.

I could go on with a detailed critique about IPSOS, the press regulator, which is largely considered to be weak and ineffective by media commentators, but it would take too much time and not be interesting to most.

So despite your protestations, the premise of my post which was simple still stands, the Torygraph (or should that be Reformgraph these days? As Tice is often given room to make some outlandish comment) is not the bastion of truth and facts it used to be, has had to publish 113 corrections to inaccuracies it has published, is well known for pushing and exaggerating for a particular agenda in its articles and comment pieces, is being hypocritical when it attacks the credibility of the BBC.

I haven't exaggerated anything, as for people believing what I post, well like all such matters, whether posted by me or published on the media, on a forum or on social media, do your due diligence.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I’m neither Swale nor GP, but your question seems to me to be the heart of the matter and, YES, they have.

According to IPSO statistics, NO. But according to Swaleconomia YES, corroborated naturally by rA. However neither has provided any credible evidence of this. It may be true but it could be fabrication or regurgitated from online "sources". I actually don't know. I did ask Swale for source of the 100 and was referred to IPSO which clearly wasn't the source. I too would like to see evidence as opposed to heresay/anecdotal .....

The difficulty in getting at truth of the matter may well be retractions/corrections that never resulted in formal complaints and were settled "out of court". In which case I doubt there is any record short of some nerd trawling through all back copies

[ramAnag]

According to IPSO statistics, NO. But according to Swaleconomia YES, corroborated naturally by rA. However neither has provided any credible evidence of this. It may be true but it could be fabrication or regurgitated from online "sources". I actually don't know. I did ask Swale for source of the 100 and was referred to IPSO which clearly wasn't the source. I too would like to see evidence as opposed to heresay/anecdotal .....

The difficulty in getting at truth of the matter may well be retractions/corrections that never resulted in formal complaints and were settled "out of court". In which case I doubt there is any record short of some nerd trawling through all back copies

Nothing to do with me agreeing with Swale, although I unapologetically do on this matter. All to do with your apparent reluctance/inability to differentiate between corrections and upheld complaints. Google it!

[Geoff Parkstone]

There you go MA - Google it

[ramAnag]

There you go MA - Google it

Well, if you searched just a little bit - instead of making pointless personal attacks - you’d discover that the DT made 80 clarifications and corrections between the beginning of this year and 5/11/25. You’ll find all the details if you bother to look. Kind of challenges their credibility in terms of attacking the BBC - who I think (not certain) - made 33.

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry I'm a little confused here, is it The Daily Telegraph of the BBC that's being sued by Trump for £1bn of public funds?

[MadAmster]

Sorry I'm a little confused here, is it The Daily Telegraph of the BBC that's being sued by Trump for £1bn of public funds?

It's the BBC. However, it's the Telegraph that is having a go at the BBC for the editing of the Trump word salad when they themselves have published more than 100 corrections...

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[ramAnag]

Sorry I'm a little confused here, is it The Daily Telegraph of the BBC that's being sued by Trump for £1bn of public funds?

Neither. Although, as I’m sure you’re fully aware, it’s the BBC that Trump is THREATENING to sue. Then again he makes lots of threats.

Personally I wish he, and many other politicians of various persuasions, would get on with the business of improving peoples’ lives rather than emulating a very poor soap opera with a cast full of narcissists.

[Andy_Faber]

Neither. Although, as I?m sure you?re fully aware, it?s the BBC that Trump is THREATENING to sue. Then again he makes lots of threats.

Personally I wish he, and many other politicians of various persuasions, would get on with the business of improving peoples? lives rather than emulating a very poor soap opera with a cast full of narcissists.

Agreed, including the most recent fubar emanating from Number 10

[ramAnag]

Agreed, including the most recent fubar emanating from Number 10

No argument from me, but when you have the POTUS constantly attacking the media and filing numerous court cases, Labour squabbling between themselves and two of the opposition parties doing nothing other than constantly trying to discredit and undermine the Government there seems to be little hope.

[Andy_Faber]

No argument from me, but when you have the POTUS constantly attacking the media and filing numerous court cases, Labour squabbling between themselves and two of the opposition parties doing nothing other than constantly trying to discredit and undermine the Government there seems to be little hope.

If, as some (including me to some extent) think, ?dark forces? are inciting the unrest, they are doing a bloody good job.

[Geoff Parkstone]

No argument from me, but when you have the POTUS constantly attacking the media and filing numerous court cases, Labour squabbling between themselves and two of the opposition parties doing nothing other than constantly trying to discredit and undermine the Government there seems to be little hope.

I'm not sure I can remember a time when opposition parties were not constantly trying to discredit and undermine the Government. It's sort of their job isn't it