The Mail publishes an article on immigration which has serious inaccuracies (Booker, who'd have thought?).
European Commission write to the Mail pointing out the inaccuracies in the context of the article.
Mail publishes the letter
but edits it so that the argument seems weaker.
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/blog/index_en.htmThe EC wrote:
In The Daily Mail of July 24th, 2012, journalist Christopher Booker wrote an article titled “The real migrant scandal”, in which we found some serious inaccuracies. We wrote to The Daily Mail with a letter outlining the inaccuracies and providing clarifications with regard to Mr. Booker’s piece. Below is the letter we sent to The Daily Mail and below that is the version published. Notice any difference? The Daily Mail has decided to drop the crucial opening to the letter that addresses the specific article and journalist. The question here is how can The Daily Mail reader be truly informed of the inaccuracies or find relevance in clarifications when they are not given the context of the original article?
How is that acceptable? If someone writes a clarification of yet another piece of hokum by a serial fantasist the newspaper can choose to publish or not, but to take someone's letter and then edit it - surely that can't be allowed.
Except in Dacre's world the bully reigns supreme. Complain and he'll hit you again.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
