Editing Talk:Attributes
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Good crew it's cool :) <a href=" http://ccsolar.net/solar/ ">glucophage xr ay</a> Journalism is not, and never can be, an exact science. Nearly all of history’s most celebrated investigative stories, including Watergate and The Guardian’s exposÃÂÃÂÃÂé of phone hacking itself, included small – or, in The Guardian’s case, not so small – mistakes. If prominent corrections and apologies had been required, those broadly valid stories would have been discredited on narrow points and vital public services would never have been performed. The fear of having to run “directed” corrections for any error – having, essentially, to let a regulator write the newspaper – will make editors reluctant to run stories that carry any risk of correction. The requirements in the press charter are less draconian. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
