Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Oh and incidentally IPSO have not yet issued it's report for 2025 (how could it since the year is yet to conclude). Hence your source for the 100+ cannot be IPSO

Sigh! I never said it was, which you will realise if you read my post.

I will leave you with this quote. Its not mine but I'm sure if you do your research, you'll find the link.

"Looking to The Daily Telegraph as an arbiter of journalistic accuracy and ethics is like calling on the fox to give you advice on securing the hen house.

The paper's attacks on the BBC are not remotely done in good faith and are the result of the publishers ideological and commercial interests. There is no world in which The Telegraph’s output would survive the level of scrutiny applied to the BBC’s journalism. ”

Now you can continue carping at me and being pedantic about what I posted, or you could cast around for other views on the Torygraphs output, if after that your not convinced I've made a case for at the very least highlighting the hypocrisy of the Torygraph's attacks on the BBC which after all was my basic intent. then either you believe what you choose to believe or you couldn't give a toss and are being a wind up merchant as usual.

[Geoff Parkstone]

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

[swaledale]

Byline Times is a monthly newspaper which claims to search out the truth the more official media suppresses. De Smog claims to investigate the real impact of climate change and Bullingdon Club Britain is a book by Sam Bright about how the rich elite have infiltrated various UK institutions to inflate their own power and wealth.

All sound intelligent and reputable, as does Sam Bright. That’s just first impressions and you can never be too careful, but I’d say they seem like sources worth taking notice of.

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.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sigh! I never said it was, which you will realise if you read my post.

I will leave you with this quote. Its not mine but I'm sure if you do your research, you'll find the link.

"Looking to The Daily Telegraph as an arbiter of journalistic accuracy and ethics is like calling on the fox to give you advice on securing the hen house.

The paper's attacks on the BBC are not remotely done in good faith and are the result of the publishers ideological and commercial interests. There is no world in which The Telegraph’s output would survive the level of scrutiny applied to the BBC’s journalism. ”

Now you can continue carping at me and being pedantic about what I posted, or you could cast around for other views on the Torygraphs output, if after that your not convinced I've made a case for at the very least highlighting the hypocrisy of the Torygraph's attacks on the BBC which after all was my basic intent. then either you believe what you choose to believe or you couldn't give a toss and are being a wind up merchant as usual.

And so we end up back with Sam Bright again - the circle squared

[MadAmster]

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?

[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