The BBC, which covered the fake news, published a report today revealing the hoax:

The story was reported by many high profile organisations including CNN, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and Forbes.
Questions about the authenticity of the story were raised by readers of the BBC website who established that the company which put out the research – ApTiquant – appeared to have only set up its website in the past month.
Thumbnail images of the firm’s staff on the website also matched those on the site of French research company Central Test, although many of the names had been changed.
The BBC contacted Central Test who confirmed that they had been made aware of the copy but had no knowledge of ApTiquant or its activities.

Wired.com did a good job highlighting some of the red flags that should have warned journalists off the story:

• AptiQuant had no footprint, no history of past studies of either intelligence or technology, despite claiming to have been a “world leader in the field of online psychometric testing” since 2006;
• The assessment tool was a free online IQ test delivered through search engine ads. This might be a valid methodology for generating spammy pop-ups, but not scientific study. (Snarky aside: we’re supposed to believe that Opera users clicking these ads have an average “superior intelligence” IQ of 125?)
• AptiQuant’s mailing address (if deliverable) would be in the middle of an intersection in downtown Vancouver.
• This paragraph:

The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual’s cognitive ability and their choice of web browser. From the test results, it is a clear indication that individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers. This hypothesis can be extended to any software in general, however more research is needed for that, which is a potential future work as an extension to this report.

The fake company’s website now carries this message:

AptiQuant was set up in late July 2011 by comparison shopping website AtCheap.com, in order to launch a fake “study” called “Intelligent Quotient and Browser Usage.” The study claimed that people using Internet Explorer have a below than average IQ score. The study took the IT world by storm. The main purpose behind this hoax was to create awareness about the incompatibilities of IE6, and not to insult or hurt anyone.

Several media outlets published posts admitting they were fooled: Gawker, The Atlantic and NPR.

This, from a local Fox affiliate, may be the worst one I’ve come across (Update: actually, have a look at this video lower down in the post):

Reporting that President Obama has been killed instead of Bin Laden? Yeah, pretty bad. Then there’s this tweet from MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell (thanks, Mallary!):

Gizmodo also has examples from the BBC and a different Fox affiliate than the one featured above. The Fox station later posted a story about all of the Obama/Osama mixups. It mentioned the other Fox affiliate as well as errors from CNN, the Modesto Bee, ABC News and Fox News. And after all of that, they admitted their mistake:

FOX40 also briefly had a graphic up with the wrong name. The original graphic talked about “OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY ANNOUNCEMENT” and the B remained when it was changed to “OSAMA BIN LADEN.” Station management apologized for the error, as did the network anchors.

What else? Here’s a CNN typo talking about “Obama’s compound” in Pakistan:

Sky News declaring Obama’s death:

Update May 2: Here’s an example from NPR (thanks, Parker!):

Update May 3: A correction from the Charlotte Observer:

A front-page story in some editions Monday incorrectly referred to Osama bin Laden as Obama. In the same story, a photograph cutline wrongly said two aircraft hit the same tower of the World Trade Center. The planes hit different towers. Link

Update May 4: The South China Morning Post published this incorrect correction today:

In a headline on page A2 yesterday, the US president’s first name was erroneously given instead of that of Osama bin Laden. We apologise for the error.

Why is it incorrect? Because the paper made an Obama/Osama error — and that involves the US president’s last name.

Update #2: Huffington Post put together a great video compilation of all the on air flubs:

This may in fact be the worst on air Obama/Osama mixup of all. As New York magazine noted in its headline, “News Anchor Made ‘Osama’/‘Obama’ Gaffe Three Times in Seventeen Seconds.” Part of it is included in the above HuffPo compilation, but this is the full version. From Global TV in Canada

Update May 5: Yet another correction from the Charlotte Observer:

In some editions Wednesday, a front page story about tensions between the U.S. and Pakistani governments incorrectly referred to Osama bin Laden as Obama.

Update May 8: A May 6 correction from the Guardian:

An article meant to name Osama bin Laden, but instead said: “Asked on Wednesday whether the team that killed Obama had come under fire, (Jay) Carney said the White House had gone to the limit in providing details and that any more would risk future operations” (Photos reveal gruesome aftermath of Bin Laden raid, 5 May, page 9 turn from page 1, early editions). Link

Update May 11: From the Sacramento Bee:

A Washington Post story on Page A12 on May 2 and a McClatchy Newspapers Washington Bureau story on Page A13 on May 6 mistakenly used the name Obama instead of Osama in references to Osama bin Laden. Link

The BBC has apologised over reports claiming millions of pounds raised by Band Aid was used to buy arms.

In March, World Service's Assignment said cash raised by charities to help Ethiopia had been diverted by rebels.

The BBC has admitted that Assignment gave the impression that Band Aid and Live Aid money had been diverted despite no evidence to back that up.

It apologised for further TV, radio and online reports which actually stated that Band Aid money had paid for arms.

The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit found in its ruling that there was no evidence to support such statements and that "they should not have been broadcast".

"The BBC wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for the misleading and unfair impression which was created," it added.

The original investigation by BBC World Service Africa editor Martin Plaut included claims that substantial amounts of aid from western governments and charities went into rebel-held areas of Tigray province in 1985 and was used to buy weapons.

Former BBC chairman Michael Grade, a trustee of the Band Aid Trust, said Assignment had "sexed up" its story by "trying to smear Live Aid through this programme through the use of all the music from Live Aid and using Bob Geldof's name".

He added: "We're very glad finally to be able to reassure all the millions and millions of people around the world over 20-odd years who've given millions of pounds to Band Aid and Live Aid to relieve suffering that, of course, the money did not go to arms."

He said the BBC had made "a terrible, terrible mistake, they've damaged 24 years of work, they've damaged the public perception of giving aid to relieve starving people around the world".

And he questioned why it had taken seven months since a complaint by the Band Aid Trust for the BBC to make an apology …

It's rare and remarkable to see an apology issued in multiple mediums. The BBC has never done it before, according to the Independent:

The apology will be the first ever simultaneously broadcast across all three BBC services – TV, radio and online. It will be heard on BBC1, BBC News 24, World Service radio, Radio 4, and posted on the BBC website.

It will state: “The BBC has investigated these statements and concluded that there was no evidence for them. The BBC wishes to make clear that these statements should not have been broadcast, and to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for the misleading and unfair impression which was created …

Via Stinky Journalism

On 18 October, the BBC broadcast an exchange between Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on the Russell Brand show on Radio 2.
This concerned the actor Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie.
Some of this exchange was left on the voicemail of Mr Sachs.
The conversation was grossly offensive and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of both Mr Sachs and Ms Baillie.
It was a serious breach of editorial standards, and should never have been recorded or broadcast.
The BBC would like to apologise unreservedly to Mr and Mrs Sachs, Ms Baillie and their family, and to our audiences as licence fee payers.

Last night the BBC broadcast a still which we said showed dozens of bodies lying in the waterfront of the Irrawaddy delta. We have since discovered that the picture was actually taken in Aceh, Sumatra following the tsunami of 2004. This was a mistake, and we will be correcting it on all BBC output where the still was used.
The BBC has first-hand evidence from its correspondent Natalia Antelava, who recently travelled in the delta, that there were many bodies in the water a week after the cyclone. However the picture we used yesterday to illustrate that truth was itself inaccurate. BBC News apologises for that.
We will be reviewing our processes for checking pictures we receive. Link (includes video).

Thanks, Jonathan!

…On Thursday we reported that in New York the “Dow Jones was substantially down amidst more credit crunch fears”. That’s odd, many of you told us, as – being Thanksgiving – Wall Street’s finest were on a day-off. Our economics editor Stephanie Flanders was mortified – “unforgivable and embarrassing” was her verdict.
This is, I am ashamed to say, not the first time we have made such a mistake. The markets information is almost always the last thing we do on Newsnight and in the scramble of a particularly lively programme last night we neglected to notice that the US markets were shut and blithely reported the day before’s figure. I’m sorry and I’m determined this won’t happen again.
A couple of years ago we thought one way of avoiding problems with the markets was to abolish the spot altogether, but the outrage then means we won’t try that again. Instead, we have inserted a note in the markets page which will read for ever more:
MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE AMERICAN MARKETS ARE NOT ON A HOLIDAY

Thanks, Adrian!

• BBC apology (at end of article)
• Times (UK) apology and Press Complaints Commission decision
• Daily Mail apology
• News and Star apology
• The Daily Telegraph also issued a written apology to Mr. Jones, but it has not published anything publicly. (We’ve removed the Telegraph apology and a BBC letter of apology from this site until Mr. Jones gives us the okay to put them back up.)
• We’re told more are in the works…

A UK taxi driver man at the BBC for a job interview found himself being interviewed live in a BBC TV studio recently, after an employee mistook him for Guy Kewney, editor of newswireless.net. UPDATE/CORRECTION: It was initially reported in the UK press that the man was a taxi driver, but it turns out that he was at the BBC for a job interview in the IT department. His first name is also Guy, so that makes the mistake a bit more understandable (but not less hilarious, if we do say so ourselves).
The video is online here, and it’s worth a view. The Times has a story on the mistake (though it includes the wrong information about the man who was interviewed):

IT WAS not until midway through the live television interview that the BBC interviewer started to grow suspicious. The man whom she believed to be an expert on internet music downloads seemed to know precious little about his subject.
Not only that, but the stocky black man with the strong French accent bore little resemblance to the picture on the expert’s website, which showed a slim white man with blue eyes and blond hair.
The corporation’s News 24 channel apologised to its viewers yesterday and admitted that its interviewee was not Guy Kewney, the respected editor of Newswireless.net, but a local taxi driver. The cabbie, who is better qualified to talk about traffic jams in Shepherds Bush, answered questions for several minutes on Apple Computer’s victory at the High Court against Apple Corps, the record label for the Beatles, The Times has learnt…

Guy Kewney, the real one, also wrote about the mishap here (and he corrected the man’s identity here):

…It is at this point, just about a minute before I’m due to go on, that anybody watching the channel would have been fascinated to see me introduced live on air, as the expert witness in the studio. Me? Not fascinated; astonished!
What would you feel, if while you were sitting in that rather chilly reception area, you suddenly saw yourself – not sitting in reception, but live, on TV? “A bit surprised?”
There were several surprising things about my interview. We’ll ignore the fact that I wasn’t giving it, and had not given it. We’ll even gloss over the fact that, judging by my performance, English wasn’t my first language, and that I didn’t seem to know much about
Apple Computer, online music, or the Beatles. People have accused me of all those things, at various stages of my career…

The BBC has since apologized on air for getting taken and also published a “Note” on its website. The BBC publishes both Notes and corrections. Notes are for things of a more serious matter or that require more clarification. This Note quotes BBC World saying it was the victim of “an elaborate deception” that led to the phony interview. Yes Men, the group behind this and other hoaxes, has published their own account of how it was pulled off. It seems their “elaborate” hoax consisted of them responding to an email and sending someone in a suit to a television studio…

Here’s the BBC World apology:

This morning at 9am and 10am (GMT) BBC World ran an interview with someone purporting to be from the Dow chemical company about Bhopal.
This interview was inaccurate, part of an elaborate deception.
The person did not represent the company and we want to make it clear that the information he gave was entirely inaccurate.

And here’s the BBC Radio apology:

Earlier this morning, our news bulletin here (on Radio 2/4/5 Live) carried an extract from an interview with someone purporting to be from the Dow chemical company about the disaster twenty years ago at Bhopal in India.
It is now clear that the person did not, in fact, represent the Dow company and we want to make clear that the information he gave was entirely inaccurate.