Daily Mail MAJORLY fucks up and posts the wrong pre-written article, complete with fake quotes.

[SCopE5000]

[quote]As Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were hearing that their appeal against their convictions for the murder of Meredith Kercher had been successful, [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044583/Amanda-Knox-verdict-GUILTY-appeal-murder-conviction-rejected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml]this article[/url] by Nick Pisa appeared on MailOnline:

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7kpZKZc9VTs/ToohMMFaQTI/AAAAAAAACQQ/D-k0JAXFPiQ/s400/guilty.jpg[/img]

It is unsurprising, perhaps, that a media outlet would prepare two versions of a story where the result was expected but unknown. Unfortunately for the Mail's website, they posted the wrong one. A cock-up, then.

But half way through the article, there's this:

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UxH6HlOQfvc/TookZCRdokI/AAAAAAAACQY/-txzi4tlyPc/s400/guiltyquotes.jpg[/img]

And later, this:

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YNplT5VX97s/TooksiOu8YI/AAAAAAAACQc/Wsho5Xsyhfg/s400/guiltysuicide.jpg[/img]

As the appeal was successful, it's clear none of this - including the 'quotes' from the prosecutors - happened.

Putting up the wrong article is one thing. But filling it with completely invented 'facts' and 'quotes' is something else entirely.

[/quote]

Screenshot of the entire 'article': [url]http://davesaysthings.com/delicious-cake/dailymail-knox-guilty.png[/url]

Source: [url]http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html[/url]

[Dunkus]

Bahahaha, someone is getting fired like no tomorrow.

[DokVis]

I was just watching that 60 minute episode right now.

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=ze spy;32621357]Bahahaha, someone is getting fired like no tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

Avatar fits

[WeekendWarrior]

Good old Daily Mail.
[img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-bravo.gif[/img]

[Murk]

What's the British government's media watchdog thing called?

Because they're gonna have a field day

[-AJ-]

It must be true because it's written in the Daily Mail.

[Jsm]

[QUOTE=Murkrow;32621517]What's the British government's media watchdog thing called?

Because they're gonna have a field day[/QUOTE]

There is no watchdog for printed media, its self regulated which works [B]so[/B] well.

[Nightsure]

I see no difference to the usual lies they post anyway.

Not thread content obviously, OP.

[-Chief-]

Reminds me of that one time CNN published a story saying Dick Cheney was dead.

[url]http://www.snopes.com/humor/mediagoofs/cnnobits.asp[/url]

[cjone2]

Business as usual then

[Zeke129]

Maybe Italy will use that new law to destroy the Daily Mail

[karbine]

^ Please

[sam2d2]

Only the Daily Mail could do something like this. Do they not have someone to check what is going out before it does.

[Cush]

Apparently a few news sites did it, they wanted to get the story out the second the verdict was given but there was a bit of confusion at the last minute and they believed it was guilty.

Still terrible that they fabricated eyewitness reports and quotes, they even put a thing up on the real article defending themselves saying that its common practice to write two stories etc, well I dont think it should be common practice to tell a pack of lies in your news articles, even if the title and overall theme is correct.

[Madman_Andre]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI[/media]

Oh daily Mail you... [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif[/img]

[Lowland]

A Dutch newspaper had two prewritten articles for the US election based on who would win, Obama or McCain, right next to eachother on the frontpage. The header basically said they couldn't be arsed staying up late to make sure they got it right, and that we should just ignore whichever one was wrong.

[SPESSMEHREN]

This is pretty common in the news industry. Hope for the best, plan for every possibility. Even obituaries for famous people are written at the slightest hint of a medical issue.

[Shocky]

I think the Daily Mail is the only "news" website I browse daily. Not because their articles are news worthy or anything, just because the entertainment factor is through the roof. Plus their comments section is always a good laugh.

[P1X3L N1NJA]

This happens a lot.
The most famous occasion.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg[/img]

[OvB]

Of course they're going to make two articles but you think they could at least put something like <put quote from someone here> then fill it in later with a factual one rather than just making it up completely.

Tells you how much you can trust the media.

[Soviet Bread]

As a journalist, the two articles for an outcome is very common. These are known as placeholder articles.

The entire article is made up of blanks and an actual shell of an article. What the Daily Mail did was make a completely fake article and chose to run with it. If those quotes and names were not in there, I'd actually defend the Daily Mail as much as it would make feel nauseous.

[viperfan7]

[QUOTE=Jsm;32622217]There is no watchdog for printed media, its self regulated which works [B]so[/B] well.[/QUOTE]

Then use this as a reason why there needs to be one.