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.
Thursday 23 September 2010
Monday 16 August 2010
The News of the World splashed yesterday on the story of David Beckham's sister being on benefits. This intrusive story goes into details of her personal circumstances including the fact that she was out of work and allegations that her new boyfriend was violent.
The sole reason for this story seems to be that she is the sister of one of the UK's best known footballers and it is on this basis that the editor of the News of the World will have to defend any complaint the family may bring.
The PCC's code says that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home and health and that editors will be expected to justify intrusion. This justification would be based in the public interest which the PCC identifies as being identifying or exposing wrongdoing; protecting public health; and preventing the public from being misled.
None of these seem to apply here as a justifaction for publication with the story being run to inform the reader of Beckham's sister's private life; her employment status, the benefits she was claiming, facts about the support her brother had given her and her relationship with a man that the NoW identifies as being a violent criminal.
The NoW claims to support freedom of the press, yet constantly puts its continuance and public support at risk by its determination to run stories that have no public interest despite being of interest to the public. The public generally understands that the famous may have to put up with considerable intrusion into their private lives as the price of their fame, but the general feeling is that their relatives (and other non-famous, private citizens) deserve more protection. It is stories such as these, printed purely for profit without regard for the damage done to the subject of the story, that may eventually lead to damaging restrictions being introduced on the media. Unless papers such as NoW can be persuaded to take their responsibilities seriously we may lose our tradional free press. It is its failure to seriously censure papers such as the NoW for stories such as these that has brought such criticism to the PCC. Why would the Beckham's complain about this story when the only redress the PCC can offer is a finding that it breaches the code and simply reminds everyone about the intrusion?
The PCC will continue to be largely irrelevant until it takes its duty to uphold standards seriously and penalises those newspapers that would breach them with penalties that are meaningful.
The sole reason for this story seems to be that she is the sister of one of the UK's best known footballers and it is on this basis that the editor of the News of the World will have to defend any complaint the family may bring.
The PCC's code says that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home and health and that editors will be expected to justify intrusion. This justification would be based in the public interest which the PCC identifies as being identifying or exposing wrongdoing; protecting public health; and preventing the public from being misled.
None of these seem to apply here as a justifaction for publication with the story being run to inform the reader of Beckham's sister's private life; her employment status, the benefits she was claiming, facts about the support her brother had given her and her relationship with a man that the NoW identifies as being a violent criminal.
The NoW claims to support freedom of the press, yet constantly puts its continuance and public support at risk by its determination to run stories that have no public interest despite being of interest to the public. The public generally understands that the famous may have to put up with considerable intrusion into their private lives as the price of their fame, but the general feeling is that their relatives (and other non-famous, private citizens) deserve more protection. It is stories such as these, printed purely for profit without regard for the damage done to the subject of the story, that may eventually lead to damaging restrictions being introduced on the media. Unless papers such as NoW can be persuaded to take their responsibilities seriously we may lose our tradional free press. It is its failure to seriously censure papers such as the NoW for stories such as these that has brought such criticism to the PCC. Why would the Beckham's complain about this story when the only redress the PCC can offer is a finding that it breaches the code and simply reminds everyone about the intrusion?
The PCC will continue to be largely irrelevant until it takes its duty to uphold standards seriously and penalises those newspapers that would breach them with penalties that are meaningful.
Thursday 25 February 2010
Culture media and Sport Select Committee
The CMS select committee has finally released its report after months of deliberations.
Generally speaking there is a lot of good stuff there. Libel gets a good look and sensible recommendations are made about time constraints for making claims for defamation online. Privacy also gets the once over with a decision not to recommend that there should be a privacy law. They also agreed that it would inappropriate to provide a legal obligation on journalists to contact the subject of stories before publication. They did emphasise that this is good journalistic practice and called on the Press Complaints Commission to include a clause in their code saying journalists should do this.
The main thrust of the report is about press standards and the Press Complaints Commission.
The committee says the PCC should spend more of its effort on raising press standards rather than just taking complaints. This has long been a concern of mine. The PCC deliberately ignored the idea of supporting press freedom and standards when it was first set up, it wanted to be solely a complaints body. But it's not possible to be a complaints body that means anything unless you are also keen to improve standards.
I also agree with the committee that there should be a wider range of people on the code committee. Journalists need to be there as well as editors, for instance. They need to be able to push their own views on the code committee to ensure they are not made the scapegoat for bad decision making. The committee also called for the PCC code to be placed in Journalists' contracts of employment and this makes it even more important that journalists have a say and are also able to speak out for ethics in the workplace without putting their careers at risk.
Giving the PCC more power to decide on stronger punishments for newspapers that are reckless about their commitment to the code of practice is also a good idea.
The committee was right to point out that the News of the World's behaviour over the phone tapping scandal was appalling.
Generally speaking there is a lot of good stuff there. Libel gets a good look and sensible recommendations are made about time constraints for making claims for defamation online. Privacy also gets the once over with a decision not to recommend that there should be a privacy law. They also agreed that it would inappropriate to provide a legal obligation on journalists to contact the subject of stories before publication. They did emphasise that this is good journalistic practice and called on the Press Complaints Commission to include a clause in their code saying journalists should do this.
The main thrust of the report is about press standards and the Press Complaints Commission.
The committee says the PCC should spend more of its effort on raising press standards rather than just taking complaints. This has long been a concern of mine. The PCC deliberately ignored the idea of supporting press freedom and standards when it was first set up, it wanted to be solely a complaints body. But it's not possible to be a complaints body that means anything unless you are also keen to improve standards.
I also agree with the committee that there should be a wider range of people on the code committee. Journalists need to be there as well as editors, for instance. They need to be able to push their own views on the code committee to ensure they are not made the scapegoat for bad decision making. The committee also called for the PCC code to be placed in Journalists' contracts of employment and this makes it even more important that journalists have a say and are also able to speak out for ethics in the workplace without putting their careers at risk.
Giving the PCC more power to decide on stronger punishments for newspapers that are reckless about their commitment to the code of practice is also a good idea.
The committee was right to point out that the News of the World's behaviour over the phone tapping scandal was appalling.
Friday 19 February 2010
Jan Moir and the PCC
The PCC has finally reached its decision over the Jan Moir column about the death of Steven Gately of Boyzone that raised more than 25,000 complaints from outraged readers (we'll ignore the possibility that many of them weren't actually Daily Mail readers, or at least not until the article was pointed out to them on Twitter).
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
Monday 15 February 2010
European challenge
Media lawyers Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson QC are to lead a challenge to the European case being brought by Max Mosley.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Friday 26 June 2009
Class memories
The Information Commissions Office has issued new guidance to schools saying that parents and other family members should not be prevented from taking photographs or video of their children at school events citing the Data Protection Act.
The Act has been widely used to prevent people taking pictures at school events such as nativity plays and sports days. Now the commission office wants that to end and says such pictures are the basis of albums of happy memories. This does not open things up for press photographers though who still need to get permission from the school to take pictures of children at these events.
It does however open up the debate and starts to put schools and other authorities that have tried to prevent photography on notice that they will have to be more convincing with attempts to prevent photography.
This is not the only bit of good news for photographers. Section 58 of the Counter Terrorism Act introduced in February makes it an offence to take pictures of the police for use in terrorism. This has caused a bit of stir in some newspapers but Lord Carlile has recently ridden to the rescue.
The Lord, who revies terror legislation, has said that the law sets a high bar. Giving the green light for photographers, amateur or professional, to continue taking pictures he warns police officers that they may face prosecution themselves if they continue to force photographers to delete pictures. The clause that says taking pictures for use by terrorists is a high bar and one that would require proof said his lordship.
The Act has been widely used to prevent people taking pictures at school events such as nativity plays and sports days. Now the commission office wants that to end and says such pictures are the basis of albums of happy memories. This does not open things up for press photographers though who still need to get permission from the school to take pictures of children at these events.
It does however open up the debate and starts to put schools and other authorities that have tried to prevent photography on notice that they will have to be more convincing with attempts to prevent photography.
This is not the only bit of good news for photographers. Section 58 of the Counter Terrorism Act introduced in February makes it an offence to take pictures of the police for use in terrorism. This has caused a bit of stir in some newspapers but Lord Carlile has recently ridden to the rescue.
The Lord, who revies terror legislation, has said that the law sets a high bar. Giving the green light for photographers, amateur or professional, to continue taking pictures he warns police officers that they may face prosecution themselves if they continue to force photographers to delete pictures. The clause that says taking pictures for use by terrorists is a high bar and one that would require proof said his lordship.
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Good news from Belfast
Good news that journalist Suzanne Breen won the right to protect her sources at a court in Belfast last week. Ms Breen had been contacted by the Real IRA following the Massereene barracks murders claiming responsibility for the atrocity. Police investigating the case wanted her to hand over all records, phones, computers and notebooks in a search for clues. They had given little detail of what they wanted and Ms Breen refused to hand over any material. She told the court that her life would be in danger if she were to hand over material to the NI police sevice. The Belfast Recorder agreed, saying there was a real risk of the group carrying out its bood-thirsty threats. However he also said it was a difficult decision to make. Ms Breen had been supported throughout byh the National Union of Journalists.
Ms Breen will not now be obliged to reveal her sources, not only ensuring her life is not put at risk but also allowing her to become the latest in an honour roll of journalists prepared to take a stand at considerable personal risk for the integrity of their profession.
Freedom of the media to investigate wrongdoing and inform the public about it often depends upon getting information from people who have a lot to lose if their identity were revealed. Only by promising confidentiality are journalists able to ensure people are still willing to talk.
Suzanne is to be praised for her brave stand which has left journalism in a stronger positon.
Ms Breen will not now be obliged to reveal her sources, not only ensuring her life is not put at risk but also allowing her to become the latest in an honour roll of journalists prepared to take a stand at considerable personal risk for the integrity of their profession.
Freedom of the media to investigate wrongdoing and inform the public about it often depends upon getting information from people who have a lot to lose if their identity were revealed. Only by promising confidentiality are journalists able to ensure people are still willing to talk.
Suzanne is to be praised for her brave stand which has left journalism in a stronger positon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
.JPG)