[Messianic Trees]

Bullshitters:

An article on December 31 reported information provided by local travel agents that there was limited availability on flights and buses to London from Romania and Bulgaria in January this year, despite one airline doubling the number of flights. We have since been made aware that some reasonably priced flights and seats on buses were available from Bucharest and Sofia at that time. We are also happy to clarify that some of the additional flights were put in place before January 1.

[Kreuzberger]

Bullshitters:

An article on December 31 reported information provided by local travel agents that there was limited availability on flights and buses to London from Romania and Bulgaria in January this year, despite one airline doubling the number of flights. We have since been made aware that some reasonably priced flights and seats on buses were available from Bucharest and Sofia at that time. We are also happy to clarify that some of the additional flights were put in place before January 1.

So, either lying or not checking their sources, y'know, like wot proper journalists do. That'll be another year without a Pulitzer down Derry Street way.

[satnav]

Two major corrections issued today.

On 30 April 2013 between approximately 4am and midnight we published an image of Yahya Ibrahim, Islamic chaplain at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, within a story about the unidentified editor of Al-Qaeda's online magazine Inspire, who had adopted the pen-name of "Yahya Ibrahim". Due to our error, those who read the article during this period may have understood Mr Ibrahim to have been the editor of Inspire when he in fact had no connection with Al-Qaeda or the Boston Bombers. Our story stated that the magazine showed the Boston bombers how to build explosives and that it was considered a powerful propaganda tool, able to push potential jihadists to conduct violent action. We apologise to Mr Ibrahim for our error and are happy to set the record straight.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z2ucsWFeD4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So they wrongly labelled someone a terrorist and then took 10 months to correct the error.

An article published on 2 February 2014 incorrectly stated that Birmingham has the highest benefits bill in the UK, with £2.7bn paid out in Jobseeker's Allowance - £157 per adult. In fact, £2.7bn was the total benefits spend in Birmingham for 2013. The correct figure for Jobseekers Allowance is £173 million, and this is £157 per adult. Additionally, the article stated that ‘the number of workless households rose through the boom years’. In fact, while the number of households where no adult had ever worked did rise through the boom years, the number of households where no person was in work at the time of the survey fell during this period. We are happy to clarify this.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z2uct1Pe55" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So they portrayed Birmingham as the benefit capital of Britain on figures that were totally wrong.

[Andy McDandy]

With a JSA/related bill of about a fifteenth of what was originally stated.

[mojojojo]

So one day the headline can scream BENEFIT SCUM!!!!!as long as weeks later in small print it says 'we are happy to clarify that the scum weren't receiving the benifts we said they were'.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

That's the Drip...

[Agnes]

An article published on 2 February 2014 incorrectly stated that Birmingham has the highest benefits bill in the UK, with £2.7bn paid out in Jobseeker's Allowance - £157 per adult. In fact, £2.7bn was the total benefits spend in Birmingham for 2013. The correct figure for Jobseekers Allowance is £173 million, and this is £157 per adult. Additionally, the article stated that ‘the number of workless households rose through the boom years’. In fact, while the number of households where no adult had ever worked did rise through the boom years, the number of households where no person was in work at the time of the survey fell during this period. We are happy to see that our incorrect assertion has been accepted by everyone and to help the Government legitimise its war on the poor and dispossessed by printing yet another blatant falsehood, and will now be able to clarify this discreetly in small print.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z2uct1Pe55" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

FTFY.

[shyamz]

So one day the headline can scream BENEFIT SCUM!!!!!as long as weeks later in small print it says 'we are happy to clarify that the scum weren't receiving the benifts we said they were'.

'But we still think they are scum.'

[Fozzy]

We are happy to clarify this.

But surely they could make themselves even happier by clarifying it in an article carrying the same prominence as the original one?

[satnav]

Another crystal clear clarification 12 months after the original story was published.

An article on April 6, 2013 said that millions of tonnes of household recycling is ‘dumped abroad’. In fact, this figure relates to household and commercial waste purchased by processors abroad, of which the proportion deemed unusable and ending up in landfill is unknown.
We are happy to clarify that the claim that ‘most’ recyclable material is rejected was based on a survey of the attitudes of UK processors towards the minority of recyclable material which is collected ‘commingled’, rather than separately.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z2vwk4Djpj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A better way to clarify the story would be to admit the entire story was a load of bollocks.

[Big Arnold]

An article on April 6, 2013 said that millions of tonnes of household recycling is ‘dumped abroad’. In fact, this figure relates to household and commercial waste purchased by processors abroad, of which the proportion deemed unusable and ending up in landfill is unknown.
We are happy to clarify that the claim that ‘most’ recyclable material is rejected was based on a survey of the attitudes of UK processors towards the minority of recyclable material which was put in the wrong bins by Mailites.

FTFY.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

An article on April 6, 2013 said that millions of tonnes of household recycling is ‘dumped abroad’. In fact, this figure relates to household and commercial waste purchased by processors abroad, of which the proportion deemed unusable and ending up in landfill is unknown.
We are happy to clarify that the claim that ‘most’ recyclable material is rejected was based on a survey of the attitudes of UK processors towards the minority of recyclable material which was put in the wrong bins by Mailites on purpose in order to be bloody awkward.

Fixed a bit more.

[Messianic Trees]

How the Daily Mail escaped censure for its false immigration story

[Big Arnold]

Slovak news magazine forced to publish 54-PAGE apology in large font after falsely linking politician to paedophilia and swindling 1.65m euros in EU subsidies

Be afraid Dacre, be very afraid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2xHFlPB7L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Timbo]

Loving the comments:

I think its great that a magazine in properly punished for publishing fabricated stories instead of being allowed to pint a one line apology on one of the least read pages like is normally done. With great power comes great responsibility.

It's a shame the DM aren't FORCED to do the same.

A publication being forced into acres of apology because it chose to smear the reputation of an innocent man? Now there's an idea.

Excellent result. DM, take note.