tubechallenge.com

tractakid wrote:The route is far from optimal. I wonder if these guys realised that leaving the network was permitted?

100% correct Andrew and what I thought when I read the story, there is no doubt that to leave the network never crossed their minds

Nigel wrote:

garion24wales wrote:The editor of the wharf told me that a correction is being published in this week's edition. Maybe someone could get a copy of it?

There is a correction in today's print edition of The Wharf. It is on page 6 which can be found on their digital reader version here:
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.c ... 5480bb6073

Nothing in yesterday's East London Advertiser though, so I think a more formal letter to the Editor is now due.

Not the best "correction" I've seen but it's a start...

Despite two e-mails to the newsdesk and one to the editor, there have now been two further editions of the East London Advertiser without any sort of correction to their erroneous DLR record story. I think reporting them to the Press Complaints Commission is now appropriate, as their Code of Conduct requires newspapers to provide corrections when inaccuracies are pointed out to them.

Nigel wrote:Despite two e-mails to the newsdesk and one to the editor, there have now been two further editions of the East London Advertiser without any sort of correction to their erroneous DLR record story. I think reporting them to the Press Complaints Commission is now appropriate, as their Code of Conduct requires newspapers to provide corrections when inaccuracies are pointed out to them.

Question:

Is the need to contact the PCC commensurate with the level of the "offence" committed here?

I'm sure that not one of their readers could care less about two people who travelled to all the DLR stations in a fast time, if I'm honest.

tubeguru wrote: Is the need to contact the PCC commensurate with the level of the "offence" committed here?

Yes - a clear a breach of the PCC code. The editor was contacted (several times & not just by me) about an inaccuracy and should provide a correction. Their rival paper, The Wharf, did so.

tubeguru wrote: I'm sure that not one of their readers could care less about two people who travelled to all the DLR stations in a fast time, if I'm honest.

That may be true, but why publish the story in the first place other than it fills space? Also, if someone has read it, and goes out and sets a faster time they may be under the misapprehension that they have set a new record.

Anyway, a complaint to the PCC has now been submitted.

I agree with Neil, I think you are overreacting somewhat. Part of the problem is they have no way of verifying that you actually did do the network in a faster time as there is no central authority like Guinness to ratify DLR attempts.

I am siding more with Nigel. Inaccuracy is hugely irritating, and I'd be even more annoyed if it was me that held the genuine record.

There is no OFFICIAL record though, and that's the issue. There is sod all to prove that anyone has done it faster than them...

I agree that there is no official record, and my complaint about the article is not that my son and I should be recognised as the record holders. My gripe is that the article claimed that this was the first time visiting all DLR stations had been done and that the reported time has set a new 'record'. Given that several people have contacted them to point out this is incorrect as they have done it quicker (albeit there is no official recognition), I think that the paper should acknowledge their original article may have been misleading, particularly if someone reading it thinks they can get a 'record' by going round quicker than 2h 43m. The Wharf newspaper did this promptly and, in my view, appropriately, by simply describing the times quoted as claimed times.

Given I have sent them a couple of polite e-mails describing the background to this challenge and have not even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement, I believe it is appropriate to use use the PCC to correct what is clearly an inaccurate story.

Following the intervention of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), The Docklands & East London Advertiser has published a correction in their print edition which came out yesterday, making clear that the previously reported attempt was not the first time the DLR challenge has been completed and that the reported time was 40 minutes slower than the record. (The current print edition can be accessed from their website if you are prepared to sit through an introductory video advert.) They have also removed the the original offending article from their website.

The PCC will also, in due course, publish the details of the case on its website, including the remedial action taken by the newspaper.

That's more like it!

It's on page 25 if anyone wants to see it. It would also be interesting to see the PCC report on the matter when it is published.

Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of this gross miscarriage of justice. The country will sleep easier tonight.

It does explain why I haven't been sleeping well, at least now I can rest easy

Can you imagine the lather the readers of The Docklands & East London Advertiser have been getting themselves into all this week, poring over the paper to find an apology?

tubeguru wrote:Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of this gross miscarriage of justice. The country will sleep easier tonight.

Absolutely. Just proves that the millions spent on the Leveson inquiry was a waste of money, as the PCC does a great job tackling the really important press transgressions.