Misrepresentation of StraightDope by UK newspaper.

[The_Clawman]

Imagine my horror when flicking through my Guardian (UK broadsheet, left leaning, generally respected) on the way to work this morning when I noticed the good name of The Straight Dope being sullied in an article by Stuart Jefferies about the possibility of the moon landings being faked.

This paragraph:

You may think Wind’s theory is a little far-fetched, but if you are so clever, how do you explain the fact that OJ Simpson was framed for murder by the US government? If you accept the account set out at www.straightdope.com, it was because Simpson helped to expose the lie that Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. How did he do that? By appearing in Peter Hyams’ 1978 film Capricorn One. In that picture, Simpson, along with Sam Waterston and James Brolin, plays an astronaut forced to stage the first manned mission to Mars in a desert. But the men decide not to play ball, and go on the run pursued by government hit-men. But if this film was an embarrassment to the US government, why did it wait until 1995 to frame Simpson for murder? And why didn’t Waterston, Hyams and Brolin get framed too? The people at Straight Dope haven’t returned my calls.

from this article appears to be a gross misrepresentation of this paragraph

There have been several books written to promote this claim, and more articles. There was even a movie with a similar plot, Capricorn One, starring O.J. Simpson, among others (1977). The difference was that in the movie, the fake landing was for Mars, not the moon. One group of flat-Earthers actually claims O.J. was framed by the government for exposing the fake moon landings through his part in this movie! As Peter Huston, the writer and skeptic who mentioned this to me, deadpanned, “Apparently, the government moves slowly on framing its enemies.”

from this column by SDStaff David.

Bad Guardian! Has Mr Jefferies really been calling The Straight Dope? Why has no-one replied? Perhaps a few of us should e-mail the Guardian pointing out his lack of reading comprehension skills?

[Fern_Forest]

sigh… tsk tsk tsk
And what phone number? All I’ve ever seen are e-mail adresses.

[Coldfire]

Ye Gads, those bastards. I’ll alert David B of this thread.

[APB]

Here’s how to contact them.

How to contact the Guardian and Observer

The number for their central switchboard appears to be 020-7278 2332. The best way would probably be to complain to the Readers’ Editor, as, of course, they make a big thing about correcting factual errors. The Readers’ Editor is:

Ian Mayes
The Guardian
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER
reader@guardian.co.uk

[Andy]

Well what kind of journalism do you expect from a bunch of soap-dodging, tree-hugging hippies?

[Celyn]

Ah, but tree-huggers should write with the greatest of accuracy and style so as to honour the trees from which the paper was made.

[Steve_Wright]

Errr… we’e talking about the Grauniad here…

[TubaDiva]

I’ve kicked this up the food chain, it can’t be left on its own, obviously.

Let Ed Zotti and the Reader sort this out, please.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

*Originally posted by TubaDiva *
**I’ve kicked this up the food chain, it can’t be left on its own, obviously.

Let Ed Zotti and the Reader sort this out, please.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator **

Oop.

Too late.

E-mail already launched before you posted.

Many “I’m Sorries”. :smack:

[robby]

Would you let us know if the Guardian prints a correction?

[Crusoe]

You may be able to check for yourself at http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections.

The Guardian is a liberal/left broadsheet - a very good newspaper indeed, and a regular award-winner - but infamous for poor proofreading and error correction. Their daily corrections column makes amusing reading; I believe they have/are about to release a book or two of the worst mistakes of the last couple of years.

[David_B]

Grrrrrr…

That’s all I have to say right now, 'til I hear otherwise from Ed.

[friedo]

My goodness. They even have to correct their corrections! :eek:

A correction, page 25, September 5, was contentious. It corrected the punctuation in a line from Wordsworth’s poem on Westminster Bridge, which had appeared in a report in the Guardian the previous day as: “A sight so touching in it’s majesty.” In fact the punctuation follows the 1807 edition and the apostrophe has been retained in all anniversary publications.

[Crusoe]

Some of them are amusingly inept –

In a caption on page 5 yesterday, we said: "The crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln spell out the message “Get Ready …” In the photograph above the crew were clearly spelling out “Ready Now”.

[The_Clawman]

To be honest, that strikes me as being a rather endearing attention to detail, friedo !

[David_B]

Since you are all watching their corrections, make sure to let us know if they post something about this one!

[pesch]

The board’s getting misrepresented by English newspapers and ripped off by Hong Kong spammers and even a university journalist. What an impressive display of larceny and incompetence.

[RM_Mentock]

*Originally posted by David B *
**Since you are all watching their corrections, make sure to let us know if they post something about this one! **

The correction, and apology, was made. You can find it in this Comment On Staff Reports thread.