Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article refers to Brand's trial at Southwark Crown Court but never says he was convicted of rape and sentenced to ten and a half years in prison. A reader could come away thinking the trial's outcome is unknown, or that Brand faces only unproven allegations.
We do not republish articles from Daily Star. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Daily Star reports that the government will consider changing the age of consent after Mia Latter alleged Russell Brand raped her when she was 16, and it attributes her account carefully in the body. Its headline calls her a "Russell Brand victim", a status the body itself reports only as her allegation. The article mentions Brand's trial but never says he was convicted and jailed, which other outlets reported the same day.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“Russell Brand victim”
Why this matters
The headline calls Mia Latter a "Russell Brand victim" in the outlet's own voice.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it that a court or investigation has established she was Brand's victim.
The context
The body reports her account as an allegation throughout, and says the CPS did not include her case in Brand's trial. No court has ruled on her complaint.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Ms Latter alleges Brand orally raped her”
Elsewhere in the article“decided not to include her case Brand's trial”
The article refers to Brand's trial at Southwark Crown Court but never says he was convicted of rape and sentenced to ten and a half years in prison. A reader could come away thinking the trial's outcome is unknown, or that Brand faces only unproven allegations.