After being criticized and mocked for publishing an online article that declared Amanda Knox had been found guilty of murder, the Daily Mail published a story to explain what happened. The paper apologized for the mistake, and also noted that other news organizations committed the same error.

Here’s the relevant Mail story, which was published yesterday London time:

Confusion over the judge’s announcement meant Sky News and several news websites, including Mail Online, briefly reported incorrectly that Knox had been found guilty.
This was corrected just over a minute later when it became apparent that he had said she was guilty of slander before going on to say both Knox and Sollecito were innocent of Meredith’s murder.
We apologise for the error and have launched an enquiry to examine our procedures.
It is common practice among newspapers to prepare two versions of an article ahead of a court verdict and these are known as ‘set and hold’ pieces.
We would like to make it clear that Nick Pisa had no involvement in the decision to publish his set and hold piece on MailOnline.
The quotes were obtained from various parties in the event of either a guilty or not guilty verdict …

One of the ways news organizations prepare for a big news event is to produce some canned copy. Write it up ahead of time, and just use it when ready.

Such was the case for the Amanda Knox verdict, which came out today. Lots of international news orgs were gearing up to report on the verdict as soon as it was issued.

The Daily Mail, with its gigantic website, was eager to get the news out quickly and bask in the SEO glory. So it had some copy in the can to enable it to publish a story very quickly, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

Problem was, somebody hit publish on the guilty story without waiting for the full verdict. Knox was guilty of slander, not guilty of murder. But the Mail and Sun, two massive U.K., tabloids heard the word guilty and ran with it. The results were captured by Malcolm Coles in this post.

A screenshot by him:

Here’s the Sun, with two versions of its Knox story showing up in Google News:

And some of the canned copy from the Mail’s story:

“Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening after she dramatically lost her prison appeal against her murder conviction. …

As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.

A few feet away Meredith’s mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that ‘justice has been done’ although they said on a ‘human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail’.

Oh and here’s a nice touch, courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter:

When contacted by The Hollywood Reporter a spokesman for The Daily Mail’s online team simply said “there is noone available at the moment” to offer a reaction to the web error.

Will the Mail issue a correction or explanation? It’s not really the paper’s style, unless forced to do so by the PCC. (See Oct. 5 update below.)

Update Oct. 4, 2011: The Press Gazette reports that an internal investigation is underway at the Mail:

A spokesman for the Daily Mail told Press Gazette that the erroneous article was only been online for 90 seconds – and that an inquiry was underway to find out what had gone wrong.

According to a Mail insider, the quotes from the prosecutor were obtained in advance and were put in a pre-prepared story which was ready to go live in the event that Knox was found gulty [sic] of murder.

The Press Gazette story also notes that, “The same mistake was made on The Sun website, Sky News and The Guardian’s live blog, but the Mail appears to be the only news outlet that ran a full-length article.”

Update Oct. 5, 2011: The Mail published an article that includes an apology and something of an explanation of how the mistake happened. More here. The apology:

Confusion over the judge’s announcement meant Sky News and several news websites, including Mail Online, briefly reported incorrectly that Knox had been found guilty.
This was corrected just over a minute later when it became apparent that he had said she was guilty of slander before going on to say both Knox and Sollecito were innocent of Meredith’s murder.
We apologise for the error and have launched an enquiry to examine our procedures.
It is common practice among newspapers to prepare two versions of an article ahead of a court verdict and these are known as ‘set and hold’ pieces.

Thanks, MJ!

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

David Price, of London law firm David Price Solicitors and Advocates, told Judge Charles Gray at the high court in London today that Amanda Hudson had been “extremely shocked and distressed” by the false picture that had been painted of her daughter Jodie’s birthday party in Marbella, Spain…
“The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the London Paper and the Daily Express have published prominent apologies in their respective newspapers and online,” Price told the high court.
“Times Online, Sky News and Metro Online have published apologies on their respective websites. In addition, Mrs Hudson will be receiving a substantial sum in damages and her legal costs will be paid,” he said.
The court heard that the coverage claimed her house had been either “trashed” or “destroyed” by drunk and out-of-control gatecrashers.
“The true position is that the house was not trashed, wrecked or destroyed. Only very minor damage was caused to one door and no property was stolen,” Price said.
“Similarly, no furniture was trashed or thrown into the swimming pool. Mrs Hudson did not permit alcohol to be served and was in attendance throughout the party as were a number of private security guards that she had employed as a reasonable precaution…

A sample of the apologies, which remind me of 2006′s Correction of the Year:

Our report (“400 Trash Eur4M Villa”, 30 March 2008) said that Amanda Hudson’s home on the Costa del Sol had been trashed by teenagers attending her daughter’s 16th birthday party, who had also stolen property.
We now accept that these allegations were untrue. We apologise to Amanda for the embarrassment caused.

OUR report (“Off their Facebook”, May 30, 2008) said that Amanda Hudson’s house on the Costa del Sol had been wrecked by drunken and out of control teenagers attending her daughter’s 16th birthday party, who had also stolen property. We also referred to an internet posting in which it was claimed that Amanda had punched Jodie because of what happened. We now accept that these allegations were untrue and we apologise to Amanda for the distress and embarrassment caused.

OUR report (“GBP 4M villa trashed by party-crashers”, 30 May 2008) said that Amanda Hudson’s home on the Costa del Sol had been trashed by teenagers attending her daughter’s 16th birthday party, who had also stolen property. We now accept that these allegations were untrue. We apologise to Amanda for the embarrassment caused.

AN article on 30 May 2008 ‘Trail of destruction at £4.4m villa after 400 crash Facebook party’ suggested that Amanda Hudson failed to exercise parental control over her daughter’s 16th birthday party and that her property was badly damaged by drunken teenagers. We accept that these allegations were untrue and we apologise to Amanda Hudson for any embarrassment caused.

Thanks, Dave!

In May 2006, Sky News published an article entitled “She Who Bares Wins”, based on news agency copy. The article stated that Mr Morien Jones had videotaped his neighbour, Ms Lynette Burgess, sunbathing naked in her garden.
In fact film of a naked Ms Burgess was taken by a builder who had been recording renovations to Mr Jones’ house, and showed Ms Burgess while she was on Mr Jones’ property, walking along the shared drive and in front of his house.
No film was taken of Ms Burgess on her own property.
Mr Jones had called the police because he was concerned about the effects Ms Burgess’ actions were having on his three young children.
We apologise for any misleading impression the article may have given of Mr Jones. Link