Sunday, 17 June 2012

Most insincere newspaper correction ever?

Much has already been said about the slightly odd correction in this week's Mail on Sunday.

The paper apologises for wrongly claiming that a budding broadcaster, Stephanie O'Keeffe, struggled to read prepared scripts on shifts at Radio 5Live.

Regret is also expressed that the paper gave a misleading impression about the nature of Ms O'Keeffe's CV.

"Our report could also have been taken to suggest that Ms O’Keeffe obtained her BBC work by submitting a CV that contained her vital statistics and expressed a willingness to work nude.

"That was not our intention and we are sorry for any misunderstanding or embarrassment these errors may have caused."

The MoS may have taken down the article. But one of the benefits of people rehashing content all over the internet is that it is still available here.

Regarding the CV, the original piece stated: "But Ms O'Keeffe - whose CV includes skills as a model, lists her chest and waist measurements as 32in and 23in and even specifies that she is willing to perform nude - lasted only two shifts at radio station 5Live."
and continues:

"Ms O'Keeffe will not be returning to 5Live any time soon - but she will not be forgotten by colleagues.

"Her online CV, which features pictures of herself, has been circulated among staff after some of them downloaded it."

How exactly could the phrase "...and even specifies that she is willing to perform nude" not be intended to give the impression to readers as that this person was signifying to potential employers a willingness to undertake such work?

Does the paper takes its readers for fools? Oh.

No comments: