An Open Letter to the Reader’s Editor of the Daily Mail

Thank you for your prompt reply, and my apologies for my slightly sluggish one. As you can tell from my details below I have a “day job” to attend to, and if you’ve clicked the links I sent in my original complaint you’ll realise I’ve also been very busy following up on some other allegedly inaccurate articles in the Daily Mail and a number of other Great British newspapers. See for example:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/

Gettting back to this complaint, I have just posted my initial reply online here:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/mail-makes-1000-arctic-mistake/

Reiterating the main point:

We hereby call on the Daily Mail to provide us with a fair opportunity to reply to this egregious inaccuracy and a number of others in the same article.

Despite your “I therefore cannot see that Clause 1(ii) of the Editors’ Code has been breached in any way.” below, and apart from your admittedly at least 1000% timescale error, the Guardian article linked to highlights a number of other gross inaccuracies in last week’s “Daily Mail Comment” concerning Arctic sea ice volume. I fail to see how “Putting the Arctic sea ice volume record straight” for the unfortunate readers of that editorial can be achieved without prominently displaying to your print readers the Arctic sea ice volume graph extracted from Rachel Tilling’s recent academic paper:

Tilling-2015-Volume

and in addition showing your online readers the “Arctic ice cube” video together with a link to it in print.

I shall have much more to say to you on that topic in the near future but I’m theoretically “on holiday” for a week from tomorrow, so it may well not arrive in your inbox until after my return.

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

One thought on “An Open Letter to the Reader’s Editor of the Daily Mail

  1. The Daily Mail have politely requested that further correspondence between us be kept “off the record”. My reply is as follows:

    Thank you for your email, although I note that you have not addressed any of the substantive points I raised.

    As you may have gathered I am not unduly concerned about my correspondence being kept confidential. Perhaps I might suggest an alternative quid pro quo? You splash my correspondence all over your front page, and I splash yours all over mine?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *