Journalists are such wankers eh
If superman returns taught me anything, it's that sometimes newspapers prepare two versions of a story so that as soon as they know which way to go, the story is ready.
If superman returns taught me anything, it's that sometimes newspapers prepare two versions of a story so that as soon as they know which way to go, the story is ready.
We know that, but it's the completely made up 'facts' that are shocking:If superman returns taught me anything, it's that sometimes newspapers prepare two versions of a story so that as soon as they know which way to go, the story is ready.
Wouldn't you just write:The quotes in the article were presumably there as placeholders ready for actual quotes that fit that context.
The quotes in the article were presumably there as placeholders ready for actual quotes that fit that context.
I'm disappointed by your reaction because, assuming your a typical journo (no worse than others), this suggests that these stories are regularly entire fiction. I know you're saying that you shouldn't much around with a story like this, but why is it ok to muck around with all the others? People read papers to get an insider look on the reaction of people, and the way the family is said to have reacted tells the story - a completely 100% made up one in this, and by the sound of it, most cases.I'm not surprised they had to do two versions at all, the decision was very close to deadlines last night so that is what you have to do. I have been at sporting events and had to do the same, two different winner pieces, close to deadline because there wasn't time to write the whole thing once it finished. Luckily I've never sent the wrong one in error, but I suppose I could have.
They have certainly cut some corners with the reactions. All of what they said probably would have happened, so I'm not as appalled as some, but you can't muck around with a story like this. Admittedly this is a piece that should never have seen the light of day, but now it's been rumbled it looks terrible.
I'm disappointed by your reaction because, assuming your a typical journo (no worse than others), this suggests that these stories are regularly entire fiction. I know you're saying that you shouldn't much around with a story like this, but why is it ok to muck around with all the others? People read papers to get an insider look on the reaction of people, and the way the family is said to have reacted tells the story - a completely 100% made up one in this, and by the sound of it, most cases.
In this case, with the deadline approaching, there's tons to write about that could have gone in regardless of the verdict - all the facts of the case, trial etc. No problem with writing 2 headlines, one of which would have been correct.