The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

Hate likely complainants been given an adequate opportunity to
respond?
For Distribution to CPs
Proving sufficient care: A complaint by the European Commission
~a~m ~ M~il on Sund~,: H~orl 53. 2000~ was rejected because
the PCC decided the paper had taken sufficient care to check the
accuracy of a story suggesting an EC summit was to discuss a £30a-year
levy on telephone Fines
Was it significant? The spidt of the Code protects a substantially
true story from failing due to a trifling error, The PCC’s
commonsense test of significance is simple: How much does it really
matter?. Getting a name wrong could be merely irritating -- or wholly
fundamental. The context would be crucial. The PCC might need to
decide if the alleges error, taken alone, was of consequence, or even
if a series of relatively minor errors, taken together, were likely to
mislead or distort.
....
Firet, the story was based on a report on an official EC webslte
whch gave no ndication that it was out of date;second the paper
had twice asked the EC press office to comment, but received no
In 1998 m ~nt ;J The GuaMdi~n’ R~.#or~ 45 ~9} a man who had
wdtten criticallysbout The Guardian,
’
complalncledt~tap~e~:di~aa
’" ’ h d
published in response was littered with ins curs los, g
response; and third, it had made clear this was a proposal for
~h:;hu:~h:hedh
a
.^._...,__ ____.^ ._ _ __+,...4,..,.~, ~.PGG decaea the news ,a ernadanen to -
g
cons deretion which had not been adopted These checks showed " P P
nvestigate s cr tic who had made serious allegations against it. In the
that the oscar
" "
had taken sufficient care on a s
P
nts
¯ . context of the piece all the points were minor ~ except rer * an errsr
The case demonstrates that ad tots are not a ways respons b e
over VAT repayment. That was s gnif cant, but had already been
for potenbally mlsieadmg reports. There can be factors over which ........
corrected by the newspaper, ins compiamz was rejecrea.
they can have no control and there can be occe
s
one when the error
is caused by contributory negligence on the part of the complainant.
Conversely a complaint against a Sunday tabloid was upheld Was it tree? If the point is significant, the next test Is whether it is
because the paper failed to put details of an uncorroborated kiss- true. The PCC will expect from editors supporting evidence for e
and-tell story to the subject of the piece prior to publication. The PCC story, wherever possible, demonstratmg that it wasn t maccurete,
ruled ~V~rkishif v Sund~3y Spm~-t- ~,÷po*r 5& 2~0~ ,’~ that this
misleading or distorted. However, the truth is not always easy to
amounted to insufficient caie to establish the truth
establish, especially if a newspaper or magazine is relying for its
information on a single confidential source, which it has a duty to
3rotect under the Code S~,~ C?aus~- 1A Com’~o~nu~ scmz::~:m.
This requires publications to offer a suitable remedy if the story,
mcludtng pictures, was significantly inaccurate, misleading or
distorted. The burden of proof, as always in the PCC system, falls on
the editors+/f they wish to claim the story was true, then they will
need to demonstrate that there were no significant inaccuracies or
distortions and that it was not m~stesemg. Even if the story was not
entirely correct, the newspaper would Be exonerated if it could
demonstrate that it had taken sufficient care to avoid inaccuracy, or
that it had offered a suitable remedy
The PCC has no powers of sue-peens, or of veritying
unsupported ewoence and n rare cases it has preyed ~mpossible to
decide whether a story was accurate or not, In such situations, the
............................ whether it is reasonable for the
complainant to be given an opportunity to reply.
In 2002 Cabinet Minister Charles Clarke accused a newscaper
of inventing a story that he ~ad ’told friends’ he regarded the Speaker
of the House of Commons as a liability ~C[#s+¢x~ MP 7/~÷ Tm’~:s
7~.7; ~. t ~+~;~t~.~5~ ~Vt~2 ’~’il’#