It’s that bloody EU again
Posted by sim-o
September 29th, 2010
The EU is only interfering again. This time it’s telling Cadburys’ to change it’s slogan…
EU forces Cadbury’s to axe its iconic glass-and-a-half slogan from chocolate bars
Grrr!
Oh, hang on. I think someone forgot to read the article before coming deciding on the headline because…
Experts at the Trading Standards Institute (TSI) said the EU rules should not apply in the Cadbury case.
TSI spokesman, Andy Foster, said: ‘The Cadbury slogan is well known by consumers and should not be confused or caught up with food labelling laws.’
He said the slogan was not part of the ingredients list, and so was not affected by rules regarding food labelling.
‘Therefore the Trading Standards Institute would have no objection to the continued use of the famous slogan unless it was considered misleading by consumers,’ he said.
That last quote is in the article itself.
Maybe a better headline would be “Mail blames EU for Cadbury getting it wrong”
h/t Mr Power
Categories: EU | Tags: Cadbury, EU, misleading headline
As usual the majority of comments to the on-line article are from people who have read the misleading headline, but have not bothered to read the last couple of paragraphs which puts a lie to that headline.
Makes you wonder why the PCC aren’t too fussed about lying headlines.
“They will probably never concede the truth, which is that the PCC has over the years been a great success story. Britain’s newspapers are infinitely better behaved than they were two decades ago.” Paul Dacre, on critics of the PCC.
“Britain’s newspapers are infinitely better behaved than they were two decades ago.”
Yes, many years ago they were far less profitable; they wasted their funds on frivolous things like investigative journalism.
Easy to behave when you are doing what you’re told and mostly rewriting press releases I guess.
..or perhaps a better headline would be: ‘Mail blames EU for Cadbury getting misleading advice from Birmingham trading standards officers’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11427357
Far be it from me to point out the bleedin obvious JSwindle but the story only fell down because the Mail didn’t just rewrite the press release but checked the facts with Trading Standards head office who then contradicted the advice Cadbury’s had been given by the local office (and Cadbury’s own legal advice)
As a regular Mail reader though I’d like to assure Mailwatch that some us readers did manage to read the story to the end and we even spotted that the headline was misleading and er…we didn’t care because it’s not a very interesting story.
Perhaps a better headline would have been ; ‘Company changes outdated advertising slogan’
I hate to be a troll but is this really the best example of poor journalism that Mailwatch can come up with?
“As a regular Mail reader though I’d like to assure Mailwatch that some us readers did manage to read the story to the end and WE EVEN SPOTTED THAT THE HEADLINE WAS MISLEADING AND ER…WE DIDN’T CARE BECAUSE IT’S NOT A VERY INTERSTING STORY.”
oh well that makes it ok then.
Point away Karlo, I was only reminding this page that Dacre is part of the PCC and that churnalism is prevelant because it isn’t risky. I didn’t say that this story came from PR. You seem to think it did – and that having been given a release somebody actually picked up a phone. *slow clap*
They caught Nixon in much the same way I’d imagine.
” we even spotted that the headline was misleading”, and didn’t care because it wasn’t interesting yet your’re interested enough to do what you hate and troll about a story about a headline that is misleading. And this makes sense to you? Do you see yourself as a typical Mail reader?
” is this really the best example of poor journalism that Mailwatch can come up with?” Er… no. The headline was misleading. You even agreed. It may not be Watergate, but it is valid for this site and its aims.
@ ms morbo – no your right it’s not ok. An inaccurate headline (no matter how dull and inconsequential the story) is treating readers with contempt. I’m just not convinced it’s worth blogging about.
@ jswindle – I was bored.
@Karlo – it’s not worth ‘blogging’ about (this multi-authored site isn’t really a blog – media watch site maybe?) but it is worth commenting on? Are you one of those posters who writes “I don’t care!” on comments sections about celebrities too, because the Mail online has a bunch, updated near hourly.
Viddy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1317624/Danielle-Lloyd-reveals-incredible-post-pregnancy-body-monokini-killer-heels.html
Go get ‘em! Failing that, try Tetris or something.
A story about Europe is never inconsequential as this will no doubt be used later as ‘evidence’ against us remaining as members. Whether you agree with EU membership or not, the debate is distorted by the constant drip-drip of exaggerations and outright lies from very powerful media.
What is it about Euroscepticism that attracts slightly strange people? Both UKIP and the BNP are chock full of foaming-at-the-mouth shitwits who sound like their brains have just farted every time they open their mouths. Are there any people who doubt the efficacy of the European project who aren’t twats?
On a related note, why does UKIP get such an easy ride from the press? If one looks at the party’s policies and compares them to those of the BNP, one can spot many commonalities.
The only real difference between the two parties are their economic policies. The similarity between UKIP and the BNP is so striking that the former UKIP leader, Alan Sked, wrote a letter to The Times saying that the two parties should merge to form one intolerant party. He was deeply disappointed that his creation had turned so bitter.