I became aware of it thanks to this rather vague correction in the Guardian:

A Weekend magazine article about a woman who for part of her working life dresses as Charlotte Bronte contained factual inaccuracies. This article, with its related comments, has been removed from our website (Being Charlotte Bronte, 3 December, page 12).

Why would the paper remove the entire story? It’s rare to see the Guardian take this course of action. With a bit of digging, it became clear that the story was removed because the premise was false. The woman, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, does not dress like Charlotte Bronte in the way portrayed in the story.

As a result of the incorrect reports, she has spent a lot of time fighting back against a series of press reports that presented her as someone who always dresses in period costume, is living in a “time warp”, and may also occasionally confuse herself with Ms. Bronte. (The Daily Mail ran a picture of Cunliffe in costume at McDonald’s. Lord know why she agreed to do that…)

Let’s sample some of the articles that are still online (the Daily Telegraph removed its piece).

From the Daily Express:

SHE is a 21st-century housewife with a husband and two grown-up children.
But Lyn-Marie Cunliffe spends every day dressed as her heroine – Victorian author Charlotte Bronte.
She doesn’t wear modern attire even when grabbing a bite in McDonald’s.
The 49-year-old harboured a lifelong obsession with the Jane Eyre author’s works before deciding three years ago she wanted to live in a time-warp.

The Daily Mail:

Many of us dream of wearing the beautiful costumes from period dramas like Downton Abbey… however few would go quite as far as donning them every day.
But romantic fiction-lover, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, has taken her obsession with Victorian literature to the extreme – by living her modern life dressed as her heroine Charlotte Bronte.
The 49-year-old loves the 19th century author so much that she dresses like her all the time – even on trips to the supermarket.

And from the now-scrubbed Telegraph piece:

Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, 49, loves 19th century author Charlotte Bronte so much she dresses as the famous author all the time – even while doing her supermarket shopping. The mum-of-two dresses in the home-made smocks whilst doing the school run …

The story originated with the Caters News Agency, which seems to specialize in quirky and sensationalized accounts of real people. Here’s the lead of one of its recent stories:

A pretty student has made a mind-blowing recovery – after her head EXPLODED.Stunning Jade Lucas, 20, almost died when a huge cyst in her brain filled with fluid – and exploded when surgeons drilled open her skull to operate.

You can also have lots of fun scanning the headlines. A sample:

WOMAN WAS SCARED OF STAIRS
PREGNANT ROADKILL CRAVINGS
NAP TIME COULD KILL MY BABY
LETTUCE ADDICTION DIAGNOSIS

Lettuce addiction!

So perhaps Cunliffe should have done a little due diligence before agreeing to the interview. That said, she claims she was misled. This is from a subsequent report that detailed her outrage at the original story and those that followed:

She said she had been told the article would be about tourism and her business Abigails Ateliers. She said she had approved a different version of the story and had broken down in tears when she had read what was eventually printed.
“I have spent three years building up my business and now I am afraid it is ruined,” she said. “I spent a lot of time building up my online presence and now when you put my name in to a search engine there is a story about a crazy lady who thinks she is Charlotte Bronte.”

It’s pretty low if the agency promised approval on the story and then switched it out. Of course, it’s strange to offer approval in the first place…

Cunliffe has been blogging about her ordeal (see here, here and here, for example). She also spent a lot of time over the past week contacting newspapers and other outlets to get them to correct their errors. Some have been responsive, many have not. This has only added to her frustration.

Cunliffe eventually heard back from the journalist at Caters, who said it was the papers who took the tale to the extreme. Here’s what Cunliffe wrote:

Not only have Telegraph and Guardian both clearly stated it to be untrue but Caters the original source of the story has distanced itself from the two remaining stories.An email from Tammy Hughes of Caters who was the person who interviewed me has made clear that “any mistakes are the result of the newspapers themselves

So perhaps the agency distributed the version she had approved. It’s not exactly clear at what point the story morphed into “This wacky grandma dresses like Charlotte Bronte all the time. Watch her eat a hamburger in period costume!”

I’m sure the folks at Caters could come up with a much better line than that. In fact, you probably won’t be surprised to learn some of the offending papers got very punny with their headlines. The Mail: “Do you come Eyre often?” The Express: “The Full Bronte!”

Advice for Responding to Inaccurate Reports

One valuable thing to come out of this is a blog post from Cunliffe that offers good advice to anyone who feels they have been wronged by a press account. She starts by encouraging people to “take a deep breath ,move away from any telephones ,mobile phones and keyboards,do not send any letters .”

Also take time to “vent ,cry ,shout break some crockery if needs be ,give yourself half and hour ,or one hour if your going to phone friends.You have every right to be upset,Be honest with yourself however about any mistakes you have made and consider them and how to avoid them in future.”

Once that venting and analysis is over, Cunliffe said it’s time to get down to the business of requesting corrections:

Now get to a keyboard,contact the newspapers politely and point out their “mistakes” at this point assume that you are dealing with honest people who have made a mistake do not be accusatory.

Read minutely the article in question ,check it for any and every mistake,this may be very hurtful and upsetting but the more discrepancies you can point out when refuting the sptry the more likely you are to be listened to

Next point out the same mistakes to anyone or any site who has posted links to an online article.

Next put out your side of the story be concise ,Social network sites and twitter are your allies here ,they provide a forum for any one however unknown to air their point of view.

Cunliffe recommends reading comments on the relevant articles (“but dont be obsessive”) and “only answer those making wrong assumptions and ensure that each page of comments contains a comment on your side of the story ,be polite and if your comments are removed email the site to pint out that they are supposed to allow anyone who has a story written about them scope to reply,this doesn’t always work but may .”

Valuable advice. Shame about the way she gained this expertise…

The Tabloid Watch blog has an excellent overview of the issue and some of the offending front pages. A sample:

The paper issued their apologies in court last week and subsequently published apologies — though none of the expressions of regret were given the prominence of thier original, offending coverage. A few of the apologies:

IN court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate oversexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher.
The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.
We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies. Link

IN court yesterday the Daily Express apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published in the Daily Express on December 31 2010 in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher.
in The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations. It was further suggested that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974. We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies. Link

Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils. The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.
Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports. Link

Yesterday the Daily Record and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
We also wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past and invaded his tenants’ privacy.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs. Link

*Correction August 1, 2011: The original headline of this post misspelled Jefferies as Jeffries. I regret the error.

No apology?

I have been asked by several emailers and callers, including two radio producers, to provide evidence about my claim that Express Newspapers EN has paid out more in libel damages in recent times than any other newspaper group.

– via Catalogue of legal pay-outs that shames Express Newspapers, a must-read post from Roy Greenslade of the Guardian.

IN Court yesterday, we apologised to Stephen Hesford former MP for West Wirral.

On 17 October 2009, we published an article entitled “MP who took moral stance “was a sex pest”.  The article reported on proceedings before the Employment Tribunal in Liverpool the day before brought against Mr Hesford by a former employee for sexual discrimination. 

We apologised to Mr Hesford and have paid him damages and costs. Link

Thanks, Tabloid Watch!

Thanks, Jamie!

In our article on January 15, “I’m too scared to go shopping on my own admits police chief”, we reported on a dispute over comments published in the Police Review about Peter Vaughan, the new Chief Constable of the South Wales Police. The Police Review reported that Mr Vaughan had said, in an interview with them, that he could not now do his own shopping for security reasons.

We have been asked to point out that the Police Review have accepted that Mr Vaughan did not say this, that they have apologised to him for their misunderstanding and any embarrassment they may have caused due to the regional and national media picking up or commenting on the story. Link

Update March 6, 2010: The Times (U.K.) also published this correction/apology:

A report and leader (“Danger, what danger? The police chief who says he just can’t pop into Tesco any more” and “Shopping Maul”, January 15) referred to comments reportedly made by Peter Vaughan, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police, about his personal security in an interview with Police Review. We now understand, and accept, that Mr Vaughan did not make those comments and note that Police Review has apologised for its mistake. We are happy to correct the record and apologise for any embarrassment caused.

Update March 20, 2010: From the Guardian:

An article Chatty, friendly policemen? They won’t try that again (15 January, page 34) referred to comments reportedly made by Peter Vaughan, the chief constable of South Wales police, in an interview with Police Review, about his personal security. Police Review has since accepted that Mr Vaughan did not make those comments and has apologised for its mistake. We are happy to correct the record and apologise to Mr Vaughan for any embarrassment caused.