Was this shameful atrocity really an editing error?
Owing to an editing error, our report “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists” (June 23) wrongly stated that research presented at the recent BPS conference by Sophia Shaw found that women who drink alcohol are more likely to be raped. In fact, the research found the opposite. We apologise for our error.
Perhaps it is an editing error. If your definition of editing is 'looking at something then deciding to re-write it to say the opposite of what it actually says'. It's not as simple as just missing out the word 'not', because the Telegraph article was a complete hatchet job, as Ben Goldacre described at the time:
Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped? “We found no evidence that that women who are more outgoing are more likely to be raped, this is completely inaccurate, we found no difference whatsoever. The alcohol thing is also completely wrong: if anything, we found that men reported they were willing to go further with women who are completely sober.”
The Tele have thrown up a mea culpa for the alcohol part of the wrongness, but interestingly have decided not to say sorry for the dressing provocatively bit.
Also via Bad Science and Jack of Kent comes this list of articles by the same journalist. The Tele's 'science correspondent'. An editing error, really?