The PCC said:
While the column had been phrased in stark terms - the journalist had made one claim which was prefaced by "the fact is", for example - the author's claims would nonetheless be recognised by readers as comment rather than unarguable fact.
So while Phillips said 'the fact is', Phillips's readers would know she wasn't trying to say something like 'the fact is'; she was quite obviously (and only a simpleton wouldn't know this) saying 'I think'.
So there you have it. When Melanie Phillips says 'the fact is', it's reasonable to assume she is not stating a fact. According to her employers.


4 comments:
It pains me deeply to say it but...
...
lol
If someone were unsure about what to believe in today's topsy-turvey world, "Read Melanie Philipps and believe the opposite" would do remarkably well as a short-cut to wisdom and good sense.
This whole ruse that a claim is only comment and that readers would understand that is an oft used one.
I complained about the 'Asylum Seekers Ate Our Donkeys' headline from a few years ago and they were let off for the same reason.
FFS! Shame they did not decide the meaning of words in the Simon Singh v BCA case!
Post a Comment