The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For Distribution to CPs delay, affecting promptness. Secondly, a public apology, which could In 1997. a tabloid columnist stated as fact that gay me~ had an highlight the error and cause renewed embarrassment, may be the average life expectancy of 43 and were 17 times more likely to be last thing a complainant wants, paedophilea than straight men. During the PCC inquiry, the Editors regularly find that complainants regard a ~ersonal letter or newspaper accepted the statistics had been challenged and that. phone call. as more suitable. An apologetic note from a genuinely a though "broadly accurate", the columnist’s interpretations should regretful editor, accompanied Dy a bouquet of flowers, is by 3o not be taken as absolute. means uncommon, it is an example of the spirit of the Code in ?n a key ruling, the Commission concluded thai such clatms action. Yet sometimes such gestures are neither appropriate nor enough and the demand for e published apology becomes an ~ssue Each case is judged on its merits, but one factor when deciding if an ~ pology is appropriate, might be whether the story had caused ignificant hurt or embarrassment. A newspaper whose headline Blair All Spin And No Delivery- Field, attributed to Frank Field MP words about the Prime Minister he had not used, offered the opportunity to reply in a letter, but refused to run an apology The PCC upheld the complaint, ruling that, as the error had been recognised at an early stage, an apology would have been appropriate ~’F7e!d M, ~ should not then have oeen presented as fact, and upheld the complaint, t~ J ~romo~or,~ v Ttle SutT: [%~;of? ~o ~997j lmperf~nce ef presentation: In news reports, too, there is a danger of passing off allegations, however strong, as fact. Presentation of the story can be crucial if by tone, display or other means it misleads the reader into interpreting as fact that Which is conjecture or comment, or e mixture of both. Soon after the death of Father John Tolkien -- son of JRR Tolkien -- a Sunday paper published a former altar boy’s claims that the v Ths tnd~o~.~l#~ Re~or~ :~ 9000 priest was a paedophile, who had abused hundreds of children. The Tolkien family, in e series of complaints under five clauses of the Code, said they had been given no chance to comment on these allegations, which were presented e×plicitly as fact. The editor’s suggestion that publication was justified by freedom of expression and a duty to expose crime was rejected by the PCC, which ruled that while the newspaper may have strongly believed the priest to be a paedophile, he had not been convicted of. or cnarged with, any offence. The Code upholds in sub-clause 1 iii the Press’s right to be partisan, but insists on a clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact. The rival claims of freedom of expression and freedom from prejudice can find a battleground here, especially when distinctions become blurred in personal opinion columns. The PCC he ds the ring by defending the freedom to comment -but only as tong as columnists do not try to argue a false factual basis for their views, it has particularly used this to decide case~ Jnvo!vlng complaints from minority groups about being portrayed maccuretely The tests incluoe: Is the disputed material demonstrably factual? If not-- Does the presentation make clear that it is comment or conjecture? Without any egal powers to investigate the suggestion Dy a ~amec former British agent-- that Mr McGuinness had co-ocerated wtth MI6. the Commisston was in no position to decide on its verectty. In fact, it did not need to. For the issue was not whether the allegation was true, but whether the newspaper nee clearly separated fact from comment The PCC decided it had as the main headline had been accompanied by another saying, Spook’s Shock Claims. Mr McGuinness said the other headline appeared to be separate in another box, but the PCC ruled ~cC, u/rine,~s ’,’ Sus~d~’~ ~o.~t ~ W~ that readers would have understood that the suggestion that he was a spy was not stated as fact, aut as a claim frorr an inte Igence source. The complaint of inaccuracy was therefore rejected. ~Jternative view: The importance of presentation was stressed again in a case brought by ~ina and Michelangelo Attard the parents of conjoined twine, who had sold etcturee and information to the media. ’.~t~rd v ,~nd~y ~Lir,
For Distribution to CPs OF D £~FA~ATIO 81 ~SE~S Publications are required by the Cede in sub-clause liv to report tairly and accurately the outcome of a case for defamation to which they had been party -- unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. This is intended to ensure that newspapers set the record straight m their own pages. It covers only the outcome of the case and puts no onus on editors to run ongoing reports of the action -- although they may choose to do so. A case where a man who Successfully sued The Guardian went on to complain that the paper had not run balanced reports of the trial ~Kirby an~ Co. v Th~ Guardier~: ~epclrt 46; f ~9~ was rejected by the PCC. The Code refers only to the outcome of the case. outcome of a case, believing in good faith that the settlement did not require a report of the eutcome. In its adjudication (McQueen ~nu G[vench£ S,4 v line Out ReSort #&fSII) the PIC accepted that the Code should not be used to give litigants in resolved cases further redress. Significantly, the Commission did not cansure the magazine, but urged editors and lawyers to make clear in settlements that reporting of the outcome was not an issue. The clear lessen for both sides is that agreed legal settlements ol defamation actions should include the timing and manner of any publication of the outcome and those arrangements should be enforced as part of that settlement. It should not be a matter for the PCC to referee after the event. =.ree° =tata=e.,e The p=v =oo.r ° ==r,, cases ] tote= whore =’,=, =L the It se=emen, ~ biaIk~I I v ,IinlIy Ipor~ , iloort I ] 2-1- I of the defamat on act on c ear y states that there is no requirement ........ ’ to pub sh the outcome or where an agreed statement Js pubtehed was added n June 2004 to protect pub cat arts wh ch reached such ...... ~;Icns.~ ~ ~r~.co~ & f%ilol .~:;xsr~ss ¢ReeoH 72 12¢205 an agreement from being guilty ef a tachnicaI breach. That happened in !999, when a magazine did net report the ? ig~ifiaa~t? Tdvial errors are no~ covered. ~e, mislead{rig or distorted? A technically :~e misleading. Has a picture been manipulated? ,~n to establish accuracy ahead Of Pub icatien? s? Was the complainant offered a chance to amme#t e~ conjecture and fact.’? Presentation effere~? iefamatisn case reported? A fair oDper~u~i~ for reD%y to ~nedc~rac:fe~ ~uat ~ g~n when reasonably aatted ~ the Dar AI-Taqwa bookshop, as an example of the sort of premises selling titles that advocated terrorism. But the shop did not sell any of the books or DVDs featured in the article. It did sell a pamphlet that was quoted, but this did not corroborate the allegations ot ncitement to terror or hatred. The newspaper offered to publish an abridged lettar from the snap’s managing director, with an editorial footnote apelegising for .~e the Opportunity to Reply is to inaccuracies, it would be difficult any misunderstanding. But the bookshop --which had sought police ~,te breach Clause 2 without first contravening the rules taid down protection, following abuse and threats to its staff -- said this was for correcting significant errors inClause 1. Complaints therefore are not enougn. rarely, if ever, considered under Clause 2 alone. But the clause is The PCC agreed, it said the misleading allegations could nave important because it sets out the precise obligation on editors. They had extremely serious consequences in the clmate of anxiety must give a fatr opportunity to reply.., when reasonably called fo~ following the London bombings and the remedies offered were It means that where it is reasonable --as in cases of significant inadequate. The complaint of inaccuracy and failing to offer a fair naccuracy wnere little or no redress nas been offereo an epportunity to rep~y were both upheld. (Semff ~_l-A~a~* v ~’~,’e~;#~9 opportunity to reply may offer a remedy beyond a simple correction. Standeftd: ~eoet? Z2 2005L Circumstances and timing can themselves add significance to an However. it would net normally be reasonable to call for an error and therefore add urgency to the need for an opportunity to opportunity to rep y if one has already been offered, especially if repty accepted. A complaint from Esther Rantzen against a Sunday A front page splash in a newspaper failed because the editor -- although disputing the Hatred For Sale Just Yards From inaccuracies -- had already published prominently a letter story n the public interest main points, The PCC decided tins was enough. The story highlighting the sale i islamic outlets was accompanied t literature in short of an absolute right of reply However i y system built on conciliation, any term The panel cotourcode ~Whatthe Code sals 13 MOD100036588
Page 1 and 2: For Distribution to CPs EDITORS’
Page 3 and 4: emind us that there is never room f
Page 5 and 6: =’~he Preamble is the key to unde
Page 7 and 8: ! !~’ ij ¸ For Distribution to C
Page 9: thai they were token during the occ
Page 13 and 14: For Distribution to CPs terms -- th
Page 15 and 16: For Distribution to CPs ~ ~L~ ~L~C
Page 17 and 18: For Distribution to CPs Dunblane, O
Page 19 and 20: For Distribution to CPs tn a simila
Page 21 and 22: hi~{~~ ’~ ~e~t ~ For Distribution
Page 23 and 24: For Distribution to CPs A magazine
Page 25 and 26: For Distribution to CPs the reporte
Page 27 and 28: For Distribution to CPs ~ onsiderat
Page 29 and 30: The use some ma al f journalist’
Page 31 and 32: Perso~sa~ an~ ~s~e~udicec~ For Dist
Page 33 and 34: For Distribution to CPs t is notabl
Page 35 and 36: ! mUI~ii ! late I ! fret: eli I ali
Page 37 and 38: For Distribution to CPs Was a criro
Page 39 and 40: For Distribution to CPs uNic~tien o
Page 41 and 42: The P/ pubtial saarct" da~e o Th~ r
Page 43 and 44: Relatives bereaved, 33, 37 of peopl
Page 45 and 46: CQ ~ten~s E.di~ors" ?ode I F’fat;
Page 47 and 48: For Distribution to CPs major polic
Page 49 and 50: For Distribution to CPs aeequate, b
Page 51 and 52: Hate likely complainants been given
Page 53 and 54: For Distribution to CPs delay, affe
Page 55 and 56: Priv shot phol rul~ sex the For Dis
Page 57 and 58: For Distribution to CPs Private hea
Page 59 and 60: For Distribution to CPs AA&rd v M~n
Page 61 and 62:
For Distribution to CPs i~! ~ Kimbl
Page 63 and 64:
For Distribution to CPs the riskof
Page 65 and 66:
For Distribution to CPs to bs dons,
Page 67 and 68:
For Distribution to CPs victims und
Page 69 and 70:
Gudt s~ 8ssoc~aUon For Distribution
Page 71 and 72:
For Distribution to CPs deception a
Page 73 and 74:
For Distribution to CPs ~ reservati
Page 75 and 76:
For Distribution to CPs Id normally
Page 77 and 78:
For Distribution to CPs upheld. ,~
Page 79 and 80:
notification to the prosecution for
Page 81 and 82:
For Distribution to CPs need to dem
Page 83 and 84:
i) The Press must take care not to
Page 85 and 86:
~ ~ ~ CLICK ON A PAGE NUMBER TO FIN
show all

The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?