On 13/04/2019 12:44, The Marquis Saint Evremonde wrote:
Nightjar posted
Â*https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46735713

A prime example of what the IPSO said the Telegraph had done:

'construed the polls as signalling support for a no deal, when in
fact, this was the result of the publication either amalgamating
several findings together or interpreting an option beyond what was
set out by the poll, as being a finding in support of a no-deal Brexit'

That is a poll of whether or not people support May's deal. It is not
a poll of whether or not they support a no-deal Brexit. It shows that
the deal is even more unpopular among remain voters than among leave
voters. That suggests that a more accurate claim (if there is such a
thing from a poll that doesn't actually ask the question) it would be
that remaining is a more popular alternative to her deal than a
no-deal Brexit.

That's the sort of fudging and interpreting and abbreviating that is
done all the time in political reporting, especially where numbers are
concerned. One could find a dozen examples of such "misreporting" every
day. So why are IPSO so keen to jump on this tiny example? Two guesses.


Only one needed. Somebody complained and they are then obliged to
investigate.

--
--

Colin Bignell