Calm down, newspapers do it all the time

Were it the Guardian that had fatally jumped the gun on the Amanda Knox verdict, would it still have provoked the howls of outrage that the Daily Mail doing so did? Even though they did, their gun-jumping was seemingly only a short entry in their minute by minute report. Sky also got it wrong, shortly running a breaking news strap on Knox being found guilty, and the Sun was equally misinformed.

While other media organisations mis-steps were mentioned only in passing, the Daily Mail's was discussed, analysed and picked apart. Apart from Fleet Street Fox - who pointed out that the practice of preparing two different stories for either way decisions is not only widespread, but commonly accepted - the blogosphere went mad over a story that was up for depending on who you listen to, just 90 seconds, or slightly longer than that.

However long it was up, it was enough time for Political Scrapbook to pick up a cached copy of the page, and it really does make interesting reading. There is only really one the Mail needed to take out to cover themselves with this story and that is the four paragraphs of simply made up quotes and reaction. That's the part that if taken out would have just made it a huge cock up, rather than the far more serious journalistic crime of making it up.

"As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.


A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.


Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.


Both Knox and Sollecito who have always denied any involvement in the brutal murder - said they would take the case to the third and final level of appeal at the Supreme Court in Rome where it will probably be heard late next year"


If you take those four paragraphs out, and the rest is fine, and even the prosecutor quote was apparently agreed in advance by the Daily Mail, if that's true that makes the vast majority of the story fine. Even the fourth paragraph is a reasonable assumption to make, that if Knox had been found guilty again she would have taken the appeal up a level. In the end the Mail has been crucified for some silly background details, made up by a journalist under pressure. It's hardly the crime of the century, and considering some of the other huge distortions it peddles, it seems like an honest mistake from an overworked hack.