Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
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
In point of fact, you were advised to do your own research, I mentioned IPSO as they were the errors that reached IPSO, most media try to avoid that and print corrections. But certain media and the telegraph and the Mail are infamous for doing this, though I'm sure its not a practice confined to those two alone, print a story with a headling which they know full well to be inaccurate, sometimes false and at best misleading and then print a correction a few days later at the bottom of an inside page usually.

They do this, because they are fully aware that it will be the original headline and false information that most people will remember and the correction will be seen by very few and hardly register.

Now before you make some stupid observation about an obsession with the right wing media, I know that The Times, the BBC, The Mirror make errors and have to print corrections, but they don't as far I have seen adopt the strategy described above.

The fact that over the same period, the BBC made 33 corrections and the Telegraph 114, suggests the telegraph is not the most accurate of publications, yet is a much simpler and smaller news organisation than the BBC is.