Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Surprise surprise... Daily Mail makes up Amanda Knox GUILTY story, including quotes
- Thread starter eastlondonseagull
- Start date
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #3
Real
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #5
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #7
Some are, of course, but most are good. Sadly, like estate agents, we all get tarred with the same brush
mcshane in the 79th
New member
- Nov 4, 2005
- 10,485
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.
They don't make up quotes and supposed actions from the families involved though!
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #9
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.
You just need to print the correct one (and not make up quotes)
We know that, but it's the completely made up 'facts' that are shocking:
'She sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears'
'her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle... remained expressionless, stairing straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family'
'Prosecutors... said that 'justic has been done' '
'Knox and Sollecito... said they would take the case to the third and final level of appeal'
I don't have faith in papers, but wow.
shaolinpunk
[Insert witty title here]
The quotes in the article were presumably there as placeholders ready for actual quotes that fit that context.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Knox was innocent. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
Wouldn't you just write:
Prosecutors said 'insert quote here'
Insert defendant reation here.
Insert family reasction here.
Make no mistake, if she had been found guilty, they'd have run that story as it is. After all, if she had been found guilty she'd have more to worry about than complaining about the Daily Mail that wasn't accurate with it's story. It's not like here sister and brother are going to complaining saying 'we didn't only glance over once, we were looking at our sister lots'.
Why is journalism like this allowed?
Randsta
New member
Foxy Knoxy celebrates by having a wild orgy!
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,893
From my (limited) experience and understanding you would actually have "PLACEHOLDER QUOTE" or stuff like that so it would be impossible for the sub to miss it. It would be a waste of time to make-up quotes and reactions. Unless of course you were a paper who didn't much care about facts and more about stories
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
That is a really bad one. Could be some more easy money for Foxy Knoxy, I'm sure she's going to get some from Italy already.
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.
Feel a bit sorry for the bylined journo himself (for the most part just doing his job, I'm sure he was ordered to 'add some colour'), this should never have gone online and public, fault is with online and production staff.
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.
Feel a bit sorry for the bylined journo himself (for the most part just doing his job, I'm sure he was ordered to 'add some colour'), this should never have gone online and public, fault is with online and production staff.
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.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Not quite sure where you get the 'it's all fiction' idea from. I didn't say that. So it's, err, fiction on your part?
The whole premise of this thread was 'What a surprise, look what the Mail have done'. What they have done is very bad, in my view less so the human error of putting the wrong story up (although that is going to cost them a lot of money, this story is running in Seattle) but the fabrication of reaction. The journalists shouldn't have done it. Other papers wouldn't even have been tempted, but the Mail is run to a different agenda and likes to have all that human reaction stuff. That's why they have done it, I'm guessing. I'm not excusing it, I'm just telling you, with some insight, how that paper works.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
It's half understandable (but lazy) to write the bulk of an article in preparation of a story. You can even just about understand them putting in fake quotes and later replacing them.... But you just know that they would have run exactly what was already there if the verdict was guilty.
And to actually publish it is a bloody joke.
And to actually publish it is a bloody joke.