Tabloid newspapers make up Amanda Knox guilty verdict

[Badnik Mechanic]

So as we all know, Amanda Knox was found innocent after a succesfful PR campaign to prove that she was an attractice person from a well off American family... ... that is what happened right?

Well anyway.

She was found innocent a few hours ago... Unfortunately, a couple of Tabloid newspapers decided to make up the verdict before they actually got the facts together or even understood what the judge had said.

So lets have a countdown of the biggest blunders so far...

Number 3:

This is from the Guardians Live blog which was doing updates of the trials events, it's possibly due to a mistranslation from whoever was listening to the result, it simply says that Amanda Knox has lost her appeal, however the main article which was published at near the same time said that she won it, sounds more like an error of the translator to the blogger than anything else.

Shortly after the blog update was deleted and replaced with this...

Number 2:

The Sun newspaper. Oh boy the Sun, if the events of the past few months were not embarassing for the Murdoc empire... the Sun Online decided that this is what actually happened.

The article contained lines like "the 24-year-old American will now be returned to jail in Perugia, Italy." The article has since been removed and the URL no longer works...

In their defence, it was pretty much a case of 'we've got two articles ready for either outcome' and the wrong one went live. Nothing too damming or controversial other than the fact that they got it wrong.

Finally... Number 1:

This takes the biscuit. The Daily Mail is quite a right wing newspaper at the best of times, quite often they make up facts, statistics and even quotes just to print a fake story, they deny it of course... However... if there was ever evidence that they just make everything up... check out this!

Don't see why it's so bad? Well... unlike the Sun and the Guardian who printed a story simply saying 'she was guilty' and what would happen, the daily mail decided to also include reactions/lines/quotes from sources who were at the trial!

Oh really Daily Mail? The prosecutors said that? But she was found innocent? Doesn't that mean the prosecution lost their case? Meaning in their eyes justice wasn't done? Meaning that... .. wait a moment? Did you make that up?

Wow, I mean... wow... so not only did they make up a story, they also made up sources and quotes from the trial which couldn't possibly have happened!?

Amazing.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Hogfather

[Blue Wisp]

Who the fuck is Amanda Knox.

Oh and The Daily Fail.

[Nepenthe]

I read a blurb earlier that said she'd been found guilty, but I didn't have time to get into the story and actually read it, much less see who was the originator of the headline. Low and behold my surprise when I saw the news tonight.

Damn tabloids.

[Ekaje]

With news sites having loads of articles, with new ones being added constantly, it's no surprise that some (or even many) are prewritten and filled with generic phrases. Not saying it's a good practice, but I'm not surprised that it happens.

[novelty]

So what the tabloids fill in information? They suspect that you believe almost nothing from the internet.

When it hits on the hard copy...well that is another story.

[SuperClassic]

Daily Mail is the Onion that takes itself seriously.

[goku262002]

Who the fuck is Amanda Knox.

Oh and The Daily Fail.

You should watch more news and less MLP dude

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

There should be a law against this type of bullshit because in a worst case it can ruin an innocent person's life. Media outlets abuse freedom of speech like crazy these days, no doubt thanks to the good old internet making it easier to do in spite of evidence against it.

Edited October 4, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[TheGerkuman]

CSS has a point, although personally I'd hesitate to call Ms. Knox innocent, it's still wrong to do stuff like this.

[Emmett L. Brown]

There should be a law against this type of bullshit because in a worst case it can ruin an innocent person's life. Media outlets abuse freedom of speech like crazy these days, no doubt thanks to the good old internet making it easier to do in spite of evidence against it.

I completely agree with you (and on the first reply - amazing!!!)

I'm curious about the laws concerning public slander. Do they only count if it's in commercial print? Bloggers saying whatever they like I'm fine with, even if they're assholes, but media outlets pushing forward stories without facts or legitimate statements is upsetting.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

CSS has a point, although personally I'd hesitate to call Ms. Knox innocent, it's still wrong to do stuff like this.

I honestly have absolutely know idea about her case or whether or not she is innocent, I just know that when media outlets do this it can cause problems for people who are actually innocent.

[Solkia]

This is why i don't read tabloids, papers, or watch the news. I have my weather channel app and that's all i need.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This is why i don't read tabloids, papers, or watch the news. I have my weather channel app and that's all i need.

[Axl.EXE]

This is why i don't read tabloids

[Milo]

Does anyone read the headlines on tabloid newspapers these days? (i.e. National Enquirer) Some of the stuff is so stupid/unbelieveable/BS it's hilarious IMO.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Does anyone read the headlines on tabloid newspapers these days? (i.e. National Enquirer) Some of the stuff is so stupid/unbelieveable/BS it's hilarious IMO.

No, not the fucking National Enquirer. One look at their cover can tell you they're full of shit.

I remember reading one about Obama being in a gay relationship with some other guy, then another about Michelle Obama having a drinking problem that they some how thought deserved such attention and what not. They make Fox News look a lot more professional, which is saying a lot.

Edited October 4, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[bmn]

I don't think you can excuse outright fabrication of content like the Mail, but this and the other controversies about news outlets are born of one concept: if you get in first, you win. Even happens here: we were first to report the Generations CE going up on Amazon, and the result was people on Twitter quoting us, other news sites linking to our story, etc.

For news organisations, winning means money and reputation (which in turn means more money). So absolutely, for any major news story with multiple possible results, they'll have at least part of a story written out for each one.

All three of the examples I'd expect came from the same thing; a misunderstanding of the first result (the appeal against the slander conviction). Doesn't take much to go off half-cocked and click a "publish" button in the desire to get a story on your site the instant it happens.

[Blue Wisp]

You should watch more news and less MLP dude

Read:

http://en.wikipedia....eredith_Kercher

[Emmett L. Brown]

BULLSHIT.

They never mentioned this girl on the news here, first time they mention her.

[Vec]

BULLSHIT.

They never mentioned this girl on the news here, first time they mention her.

[Lady Lily]

Tabloids always lie. If they were true I would have seen Elvis in Walmart with an Alien playing checkers with Kennedy.

[Stacy]

Agh! Amanda Knox this! Amanda Knox that! Who cares what she does next! What about Meredith Kercher's family?

Bloody tabloids!