I hate the Daily Mirror even more than The Sun, and believe me that takes some doing. It would seem that pressure has been applied to them regarding their story about Sheva being a 'snitch', and they've had to recant, the cahnts.

Link - Mirror admit being full of sh*t and apologise

morons. funny how its right at the bottom in smaller text.

link doesn't work for me. try this!

Mirror Apologises

Funny how the apology carefully repeats all of the false allegations before accepting that they were not true and apologising!

Funny how the apology carefully repeats all of the false allegations before accepting that they were not true and apologising!

Definately a dirty trick.

It's almost; how to make an apology without it sounding like any apology is being made at all.

I think they are obliged to state clearly which story this correction and apology refers to. I also think that according to "decent journalistic procedure" or whatever it is called in England(or if they have such a set of rules for journalists) you are obliged to give this correction/apology roughly the same amount of publicity that was given to the original incorrect material to make sure that people as many people as possible will know of the real state of things. At least in Finland they have this set of rules for the journalists and most of them take pride in upholding "the law". Not sure if they have these in England, here is a rough translation of just some of the more interesting rules:

- A Journalist is responsible to keep it's readers/listeners/watchers informed of what is happening in the world

(Some of the sports press in England also seem to feel obliged to share with us what happens in their imagination too)

- Journalist must stick to the truth

(Ok... ...sure!)

- It must always be made clear to the reader/listener/watcher which content is fact and which is fiction.

(They do that in England, don't they? Oh... )

- Journalist must be truthful about the subject.

( )

- Journalist must be critical of the sources.

(Do they need to be critical of their imagination too? )

- The headline and/or captions must not be misleading about the content of the story.

(Oh yeah, they wouldn't dream of misleading the public. )

---

There are more rules in the code of "decent journalistic procedure" but I think you get the picture. Maybe they hope that all the other garbage they produce will be taken as truth now that they corrected and apologised these false Sheva stories.

good old mirror. they apologise for slagging a chelsea player off, but still get there digs in. apparently that scrap at qpr is a major embarrasment for chelsea f.c. no idea how the hell they got that one in.

Wouldn't it be great if all journalists suddenly reverted back to what they originally were - reporters. In other words, people who just reported facts and didn't include their own warped and uninvited opinions.

Clearly this will never happen, as their egos would never allow it - the average journalist would make Muhammad Ali seem like a shrinking violet.

the thing that annoys me the most is that they arent journalists anymore. a journalist reports the news. these gits try to make the news.

This is where the whole system is shown to be utterly pathetic. A paper can print pretty much what it damn well likes irrespective of factual content. Then at some later point it can retract a statement, apologise for it and, worst case scenario for the paper, face a court case or out of court settlement.

However you can bet your bottom dollar that the original story and the publicity is worth a hell of a lot more to the paper then any financial penalty they incur.

And where they just get away with a lame apology you can guarantee at least 50% of readers will remember the original story well beyond the point they forget there was ever an apology.

There is a totally unsatisfactory process in place to establish credible disincentives for newspapers to make up stories (be they football related or any other 'juicy titbit')

Freedom of speech is one thing (and a good thing) however with it comes a sense of responsibility and a degree to which people should be held accountable for the accuracy and the objective of what they print.

For example I have no problem with the likes of the Sunday/Daily SPort or the National Enquirer (not as familiar with the content of the Enquirer so I could be mistaken here) because they make no claim to be reporting actual news - they portray themselves as a joke story publication and thus their content is treated as such.

However publications that attempt to portray themselves as delivering factual news should be held far more accountable, and punsihed far more severely, when they are found to be either lying or utterly negligent in their due diligence.

p.s. no this isn't me

can someone tell him he's had his pint nicked?

What are the odds that they report tomorrow or on sunday or monday at the latest that Mirror has received death threats from Chelsea fans and have been forced to make an apology.

can someone tell him he's had his pint nicked?

I was just going to post that, but you beat me to it.

In this situation they should be forced to

a) print the headline in bold on the back (or front page) with as much prominence as was given to the original story 'MIRROR PRINTS LIES ABOUT CHELSEA' or 'MIRROR MAKES STUFF UP TO DECEIVE ITS READERS'

Name the source who came up with original lies, along with proof of how he has been stripped of any responsibility within the organisation, and has been forced to repay any monies received for providing the original 'story'

I'm not surprised to discover this was all a total fabrication. I can't pick up any newspaper without doubting virtually every word I read. That's how bad the Bristish press has become - and not just the tabloids.

Funny how the apology carefully repeats all of the false allegations before accepting that they were not true and apologising!

Definately a dirty trick.

It's almost; how to make an apology without it sounding like any apology is being made at all.

Exactly what I thought -- bloody mirror!!