wanderlust

The Observer apolgizes

3 posts in this topic

Sunday 28 February 2010 Article history

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/catherine-bennett-prostitution-trafficking

Quoting from the report "Migrants in the UK sex industry", compiled by Dr Nick Mai of London Metropolitan University, we said that government proposals to criminalise prostitutes' clients would "discourage migrants and UK citizens working in the sex industry". Regrettably, this misrepresented some of his research. The sentence quoted goes on to make it clear that these measures would discourage sex workers and their clients "from cooperating with the police and sex work support projects in the fight against cases of trafficking and exploitation". ("No trafficking? Well, there's a hell of a lot of women suffering", Comment, 25 October 2009).

Whoops. Funny how the antis are so good as misrepresenting reports that don't fit their prejudices, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoops. Funny how the antis are so good as misrepresenting reports that don't fit their prejudices, isn't it?

Yep, I was somewhat amused by the misquote when I read about it.

Doesn't so much misrepresent the report but completely reverses its meaning. Of course, the quote is taken out of context either way. :o

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't so much misrepresent the report but completely reverses its meaning. Of course, the quote is taken out of context either way. :o B

Quite. And it's not entirely clear whether the Observer is regretting the misrepresentation or the fact that it didn't say what their writer would have liked it to say......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now