Earlier this week The Times misread an A-lister's employment at CCHQ and announced that a former employee of the government's GCHQ spy centre was on the priority list. The Telegraph announced that Pauline Latham was the first female A-lister to be selected for a seat - the seat of Mid Beds. Ms Latham had actually been selected for Mid Derbyshire. These are isolated errors but a confusion that is set to run and run and run is the media's repeated difficulty at distinguishing between David Davis MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, and David Davies MP, the new backbencher for Monmouth.
This is an earlier capture of today's Mail website (since corrected). The Mail attributed an article by David Davies MP to David Davis MP. It was quite a big mistake as Mr Davies was advocating a controversial policy of arming householders with Taser guns (ConservativeHome covered the story at 0843 this morning). If, as the MailOnline had reported, it had been the policy of the Shadow Home Secretary it would be a big deal. Given that David Davies is determined to keep highlighting law and order issues I predict further confusion to come. This could get interesting...
It does show the lazy attitude some journalists take. Very few informed people would make that mistake, David Davies seems to be a loose cannon.
On an unrelated note, has anyone noticed that massive MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham stands up to be called at every PMQ's, attention seeking???
Posted by: David Walker | June 18, 2006 at 22:48
From what I can see we are very fortunate to have campaigners of the nature of David Davies, Phillip Davies, Greg Hands and Richard Bacon among our new(ish) intake of MPs. Compare their efforts to those of some of the bed blockers who still inhabit the Tory benches and it is clear who best serves the conservative cause!
Posted by: Donal Blaney | June 18, 2006 at 23:13
That's what you get when you read a comic.
Posted by: Andrew | June 19, 2006 at 11:21
Everyone I know in the Army gets frustrated with the mass media's complete inability to report military news accurately. Ranks, regimental titles, weapon systems and equipments all get mixed up.
If their defence correspondents can't get this stuff right what hope is their for their political coverage?
Posted by: James Cleverly | June 19, 2006 at 12:19
The tabloids assume their readers are morons - that's why they invent so many stories, and don't bother with basic fact checking.
Let's face it, people are still buying their products after decades of this, so why would they change?
Posted by: Andrew | June 19, 2006 at 13:53