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]

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?

[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.

[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

[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!

[swaledale]

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!

I've posted a few direct from the Telegraph website just to make him STFU!!

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why he has been like a deranged dog with a bone on what I thought was a relatively straightforward point. That yes the BBC made an error of judgement, but a paper like the Telegraph which makes numerous similar errors (although in many cases they can be shown to be deliberate exaggerations, knowing full well the intended headline will register with far more people than the correction will do later on) making claims that the BBC is effectively not fit for purpose is pure hypocrisy.

But then as the saying goes, people believe what they want to believe.

Anyway hopefully that brings this particular bout of foolishness to an end!

[Andy_Faber]

I've posted a few direct from the Telegraph website just to make him STFU!!

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why he has been like a deranged dog with a bone on what I thought was a relatively straightforward point. That yes the BBC made an error of judgement, but a paper like the Telegraph which makes numerous similar errors (although in many cases they can be shown to be deliberate exaggerations, knowing full well the intended headline will register with far more people than the correction will do later on) making claims that the BBC is effectively not fit for purpose is pure hypocrisy.

But then as the saying goes, people believe what they want to believe.

Anyway hopefully that brings this particular bout of foolishness to an end!

It does, because we can now all agree that The Telegraph (who as a by the by we aren't forced to pay for) and BBC (who we are) peddle lies to suit their agenda, Telegraph more, but BBC it would appear more costly (potentially)

[ramAnag]

It does, because we can now all agree that The Telegraph (who as a by the by we aren't forced to pay for) and BBC (who we are) peddle lies to suit their agenda, Telegraph more, but BBC it would appear more costly (potentially)

Much more costly to buy the Telegraph than a TV Licence though Andy and the BBC does give you access to much more for your money.

Interesting perhaps that the Telegraph repeatedly just says glibly, ‘we are happy to correct the record’. Shouldn’t the BBC have that opportunity too?