Inaccuracies..?
12/05/04 11:44 Ethics
It's always interesting to get the other side of a
piece in a paper if you thought it was particularly
slanted. I often get this feeling with my pet
bugbear, the Daily Mail, as regular readers will know
- to the extent that I quite wrongly criticised them
when they said Michael Parkinson was leaving the BBC
while he was still denying it.
But they do seem to go for the jugular more than a little when it comes to stuff like, oh, let's say Asylum seekers. Or enlarged Europe. They will tell you we're about to be flooded, there will be mass immigration and we won't be able to cope, et cetera. They have interviewed people intending to come to the UK and sponge off our benefits, so it must be true.
Or must it? Here's a link (click here) to a piece about a family the Mail profiled in late April. It would be naive to suggest the newer piece is any less slanted than the original, particularly coming as it does from a State agency. But it's worth reading, and points to several factual inaccuracies in the rather alarmist piece the Mail actually ran.
But they do seem to go for the jugular more than a little when it comes to stuff like, oh, let's say Asylum seekers. Or enlarged Europe. They will tell you we're about to be flooded, there will be mass immigration and we won't be able to cope, et cetera. They have interviewed people intending to come to the UK and sponge off our benefits, so it must be true.
Or must it? Here's a link (click here) to a piece about a family the Mail profiled in late April. It would be naive to suggest the newer piece is any less slanted than the original, particularly coming as it does from a State agency. But it's worth reading, and points to several factual inaccuracies in the rather alarmist piece the Mail actually ran.
|