The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
aeequate, but the PCC felt the magazine’s unilateral action
ran counter to the spirit of the Coda. "Publishing a correction
which has not been agreed with the complainant, eespite a
request from the Commission not to do so, was neither with n
the spirit of the system of self-regulation nor within the ~etter
of the Code ot Practice," said the Commission in an
aajudication censuring the editor. O¢~s/ton v 7he Sunday 7}me~
the obligation of due prominence s properly met. It has mane
clear it wilt tolerate nothing less (See else Pa~ If).
So an editor is free to decide the prominence, but the PCC
is also free to decide that t was not sufficient -- and that
could lead to a further breach of the Code. For this reason
newspapers often consult the PCC Ln aevance for advice on
0romlnence.
As with the placing of corrections ~o~ P~a 18} due
Mr~gazine; f:@~ort 71 ~’tjOt£
So while bad practice is rare, when it occurs the PCC prominence does not mean equal prominence. A breach of
always takes a grave view. In 2007. it censured the Sunday the Code in the front page lead does not necessaNy mean
Mail for failing to hold to an undertaking given in 2003 to keep the adjudication should be on Page One -- although it might
on fie a complainant’s denial of allegations it had made be. ltdependsonwhatwouldbeappropriate, accerding to the
against him
gravity of the case.
The paper had repeated the claims without recording the For example the PCC ruled that an Evening Standard lead
denials. The PCC regarded this as a serious matter and story suggesting that climate change activists were planning
upheld a compla nt that the report was misleading under to cause chaos at Heathrow Airport by placing hoax bomb
Clause 1. (Lo@~m9 v Sund~y M~P £epoH 76 2OCtal).
packages and attacking the security fence was based on
When, a few months later, the same paper unilaterally flimsy evidence, misleading and was a serious breach of the
cnanged the wording of an agreed letter resolwng a Code
complaint, it earned another stern rebuke. While the revised The newspaper published the adjudication prominently on
wording was st II a proportionate response, the PCC warned
that the paper’s approach was highly unusuah disappointing
an early inside page with a Page One reference to Jr, fh~
-- and should not be repeated (Fo~e ~t~ v Sur~d~ ~P~ 2008’
Due prominence: The second test of co-operation is the
requirement that publications print adverse adjudications
against them n full and with due prominence. This is the
PCC’s principal sanction against offending newspapers. In
fact, no editor has ever failed to publish an adverse
adjudication, even though they have occasionally run to 4,000
words.
White there is an excellent record of compuance on
publication of adjudications, the PCC is equaNy insistent that
In dally paginations meant they were each a similar distance
from the back page.
But this arithmetic did not add up for the PCC, winch ruled
that [he paper had failed to give due prominence. The
Commission ordered that another ad udication, detailing both
breaches should be published --prominently. It was duly run
on Page 14. ~r~e i~C~ ~Jchc~!~s ~/~ x~a~ t~ c ~ ~,or :~8.2hOt
~UO~
ww’~,e~dltO rsce~e, o 1~ -~
The panel
cotour co{le
~Wna~ me
Code says
~ey
oueseons
eo items nee~
[oa~
memselves
when Code
issues arise
" Briefings
on specific
areas where
MOD100036626