Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
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.