[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/slogan-t-shirt-ed-miliband-fashion-industry-ruins-everything ]Charlie Brooker sums up the whole ridiculous storm in a teacup[/url]

[i]The fashion industry is the worst possible vessel for conveying an ethical message about anything. You might as well carve your slogan into the back of a baby seal and kick it down a spiral staircase made of orphan bones for all the good it’ll do you.[/i]

The Fail will just have to go back to its usual, pathetic default 'Harriet Harperson' angle for attacking feminists

Whats with the STW pre-link page?

I think we are old enough to know about and decide if we want to visit the dirtbag newspaper site. Felt like a 'Nannysite' for a moment.

But then [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29885222 ]tabloid readers are more illiterate than other readers[/url]

[i]Whats with the STW pre-link page?[/i]

Been like it for years and explained before. No-one's stopping you going to the DM page.

Charlie Brooker sums up the whole ridiculous storm in a teacup

Is he allowed to talk that much sense? It seems so at odds with everything else I read!

at least we have the new PCC or whatever its called now to stop them making up lies, oh....

Whats with the STW pre-link page?

Primarily it strips the referrer content from the link, I believe.

I think we are old enough to know about and decide if we want to visit the dirtbag newspaper site.

Yes you are, and that's exactly what the landing page gives you the option to do, whilst preventing people visiting it accidentally from an embedded link. It's a bit like Windows asking "are you sure you want to delete that?"

[quote=Cougar said] It's a bit like Windows asking "are you sure you want to delete that?"

It's more like Windows asking you "are you sure you want to do that?" whenever you open up a browser Microsoft don't like 🙂

This obviously means the mods don't read my posts. So I can say what I blimmin well like. Yea!

You don't appear to understand what a PA article is.

This obviously means the mods don't read my posts

Au contraire. I read it, I just ignored it.

(-:

Hardly a Daily Mail fail. Its core readership will probably never come across the rebuttal, and a lot more people will remember the blanket coverage of the original MoS story than any attempt to refute it.

It's buried in the wires section of the site today, as the Mail moves on to a benefit cheat mum of three and husbands and wives with different sex drives. 🙂

I bet half the people who earnestly posed with that £45 t-shirt on are still saying nasty things about globalisation while many of the women making it have moved to a different continent away from their families to produce it.

[i]I read it, I just ignored it.[/i]

I knew that 🙁

Wasn't one of the PCC code thingies that the appology has to have equal visibility to the original story?

For online postings I propose that this means the publisher has to ensure it gets the same number page views by whatever means. if putting it on the front page of the site does it then great, but if not they need to leave it up for longer. Pay for adverts to link to it, ask rivals to link to it etc. Maybe even pay people to read it.

Also the appology page must have no links to other stories on the site and no adverts.

The PCC should introduce a rule that any apology or a story that is proven to be incorrect should be given the same space an prominence as the original story. So if the original was on the front page with 3 other pages, the apologies gets the same space and treatment. It may make them think twice before spouting such rubbish (maybe...)

Wasn't one of the PCC code thingies that the appology has to have equal visibility to the original story?

For online postings I propose that this means the publisher has to ensure it gets the same number page views by whatever means. if putting it on the front page of the site does it then great, but if not they need to leave it up for longer. Pay for adverts to link to it, ask rivals to link to it etc. Maybe even pay people to read it.

Also the appology page must have no links to other stories on the site and no adverts.

It isn't an apology. It's just a link to some Press Association wire copy - ie a story by another news organisation which the Mail subscribes to.
I'm sure the Fawcett Society could complain to the PCC and get an apology if they wanted, but it will be a few months down the line, so even less impact.

Wasn't one of the PCC code thingies that the appology has to have equal visibility to the original story?

The joy of a regulatory* framework based on editors making up their own rules as they go along, is that they then get to make up their own rules as they go along.

Great innit?

You know all that stuff you thought you saw on telly about the Leveson inquiry? Murdoch being 'humbled'? Politicians foaming at the mouth, loftily denouncing their tabloid mates? The ones they'd previously given a job too? Hugh Grant? Steve Cougan? Maddies mum and dad? Well you must have dreamt the whole thing. It wasn't real. None of it actually happened.

* The word is used figuratively in this instance, and infers no actual restrictions on behaviour of any sort. Nor any penalties should any of these non-behaviors be transgressed

Hmm, I've just read that and it doesn't really sem to say that the story was rubbish, just that the company claims to have independent reports that refute the allegations

Saying that, R4 listeners this morning may have heard the interview with the cat owner who's cat was put down by the RSPCA a few months ago, who made various claims that the RSPCA spokesman thoroughly refuted the next day and reassured the public that they had done nothing wrong, but have just had to issue a written apology over, accepting his claims were true after all.