Accuracy and a newspapers duty

The PCC has just published its latest adjudication, upholding a complaint against the Canterbury Times, Herne Bay Times and the Whitstable Times.
All three were found to have breached clause 1 of the editor's code that insists the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
The papers had received an anonymous e-mail claiming that the complainant, who had just been given the lead role in a local operatic production, was an 'ex-heroin user'.
According to the PCC, there was no evidence that the papers had made any efforts to verify the story other than to contact the complainant (who vehemently denied it) and the operatic society for their comment. On this basis they published the story, with the complainant's denial.
The PCC said this was a "clear editorial lapse"; something of an understatement but a far clearer judgement than the risible view of the newspaper that this was a "difficult call".
Printing defamatory information about people on the basis of an anonymous, unsolicited call without further evidential support is not a "difficult call"; it is editorial madness. Even checking with the complainant is arguably unethical but with a firm denial there is nowhere else to go but to drop the story unless further evidence is found.
I am assuming that the complainant is even now consulting m'learned friends down at Carter Ruck and partners and that we will be seeing reports of a substantial payment being made in the near future. If such a payment can ram home to those taking the decision that this was not a "difficult call" but a straightforward case for non-publication then the courts will have done the right thing.