AddThis SmartLayers

Funnies file: Weekly happy to set the ‘record’ straight

It’s not always the big stories that result in newspapers being taken to the Press Complaints Commission.

It seems one member of the public became hot under the collar after the Docklands & East London Advertiser reported that two individuals had been the first to complete the challenge of visiting all the stops on the Docklands Light Railway – and had set a new record for doing so.

It would appear, however, that this was not the case as the DLR Challenge – where enthusiasts visit all the stations in the fastest time possible – has been carried out several times by different people.

The weekly newspaper also published the time for completing the challenge as being 40 minutes slower than the current record.

The complaint, by a Mr Nigel White, was resolved by the PCC which negotiated the removal of the article online and the publication of the following correction in the newspaper:

“This newspaper would like to point out the DLR Challenge where enthusiasts visit all DLR stations in the fastest time possible has been carried out several times by different people. In a story published on July 24, 2013, with the headline “Chums win DLR 45 stations challenge” and on our website as “DLR conquered like Everest 60 years ago as royalty make the news”, it was reported the challenge was carried out for the first time which is not the case. The time published for completing the challenge was also 40 minutes slower than the current record and, therefore, not the quickest time as reported. We are happy to set the record straight.”

3 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • October 18, 2013 at 9:15 am
    Permalink

    How on earth did this ever get as far as the PCC?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 18, 2013 at 9:18 am
    Permalink

    And, by the way, what’s so funny about it?
    I guess the real Funnies file will appear later.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    Permalink

    Not very interesting and this “guilty” paper shouldn’t have published this silly apology.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)