Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

As you say MA it would be nice to see a truthful, unbiased view on the veracity of those 4 organisations.

[swaledale]

As you say MA it would be nice to see a truthful, unbiased view on the veracity of those 4 organisations.

Well you could just go on the IPSOS website and see for yourself the examples I've quoted.

[SithHappens]

The BBC edit issue is probably just a deflection anyway for Trump considering he's been mentioned in the latest Epstein file release

[MadAmster]

It's starting to look like Panorama didn't air in Florida so the Fanta Flavoured F*ckwit can't sue there and he'd have no chance in the UK.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Thankyou for the link Swale....

[Geoff Parkstone]

So the 2024 IPSO report noted over 300 complaints against the Telegraph (for comparison the Sun received over 3 times as many.

But looking more deeply into the stats they indicate that none were entirely upheld and 3 partially upheld (I guess the three you identify). I have not got your axe to grind against right wing media but I'm also not one to bend statistics to suit my objectives - and present wholly valueless conclusions..

To put it in context the Horse and Hound had exactly the same number of wholly upheld complaints as the Telegraph - none.

If I were to complain about you (on a wholly inaccurate basis) to FM and they dismissed the complaint as poppycock, would you expect to be vilified for it.

Or have I misread the stats

[swaledale]

So the 2024 IPSO report noted over 300 complaints against the Telegraph (for comparison the Sun received over 3 times as many.

But looking more deeply into the stats they indicate that none were entirely upheld and 3 partially upheld (I guess the three you identify). I have not got your axe to grind against right wing media but I'm also not one to bend statistics to suit my objectives - and present wholly valueless conclusions..

To put it in context the Horse and Hound had exactly the same number of wholly upheld complaints as the Telegraph - none.

If I were to complain about you (on a wholly inaccurate basis) to FM and they dismissed the complaint as poppycock, would you expect to be vilified for it.

Or have I misread the stats

Sigh!

I've not got an axe to grind against right wing media, I've got an axe to grind against media that continually publishes false, inaccurate and misleading stories, of which the Torygraph and the Daily Fail are the leaders.

I'm also deeply suspicious of media that is funded by billionaires (which in the case of the Torygraph and Fail are also exp pat tax avoiders) that in addition to publishing false, inaccurate and misleading stories, push a certain agenda.

Maybe that's just me, because it seems many people are quite happy to believe these things which can easily be proven not to be true.

From the effort your taking to counter my argument, that the Torygraph, which has a track record of regularly publishing exaggerated, biased, sometimes false information is not really in a position to attack the BBC, which though it makes mistakes and in the case being discussed an unnecessary one. Its pure hypocrisy, when time and time again, irrespective of the 3 cases the (rather ineffective) press regulator, has adjudicated on, has been shown by a number of sources to be wrong and has been forced, not by the regulator I might add, to publish corrections. It seems to me that you gloss over the FACT that misleading and exaggerated information was published by this paper and that a reasonable person would think, "Mm this is a bit hypocritical, the Torygraph hasn't exactly got clean hands itself here"

These attacks on the BBC are constant and coordinated, sometimes they might have merit, to an extent. Most times they are an agenda being pushed by their owners who don't like the concept of a reasonably impartial state broadcaster. They would prefer a US style situation, where there is no attempt at impartiality or truth or facts, merely each station pushing its own agenda. Plus the BBC for all its faults, does act as a reasonably reliable source of information in a world where "news" is largely utter *******s.

I generally work on the principle with people, media and other sources of information, that yes there will generally always be an agenda that influences how information is presented and occasionally false information either deliberately or accidentally may be given, but if its done on a regular basis, or there is a consistent pattern of lies and falsehoods, I wouldn't take anything at face value.

Effectively what your saying is, that despite having proven the Torygraph does publish exaggerated and even false information, that it has got a reputation over the last few years for being a "culture war" paper, than a Newspaper doesn't in your opinion devalue its attack on the BBC.

[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]

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]

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