The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
he aim of Clause 12 is to protect individuals from
T
I~ discriminatory coverage and no public interest defence is
available. However, the Code does qot covergenerelised remarks
about groups or categories of people, which would involve
subjective views, often based on political correctness or taste, and
be difficult to adjudicate uoon without infringing the freedom of
exoression of others.
AS always= the Code is striking a balance between the rights of
the oublic to freedom of speech and the rights of the indiv’dual -- in
this case not to face personal discriminatory aeuse. Freedom of
axoresslon must embrace the right to hold views that others might
find distasteful and sometimes offensive,
The Code Committee’s aootoech has always been that, in a free
should be e n
daily basis.
.~ that
For example, although British newspapers and magazines were
free under the Code to pub sh the controvers a Dan sh cartoons of The anal
P
the Prophet Mohammed, none chose to do so. It was the exercise of colour code
discretionary ~ditode! judgment.
The PCC has always upheld the arese’s right to make robust,
generalised remarks, when clearly presented as comment, in the
name of free speech
However, the same does not apply to pejoreuve or prejuOlcia
attacks directed at named individuals. So when e lad’s mag
published a sticker poking fun at the disabled son of Katie Price -the
glamour model Jorean -- the PCC received 143 complaints,
~ncluding from Ms Price and her husbanfl. Peter Andre. The ~ssue
W What th~
Code says
By the same standard, a national newspaper columnist was free
to suggest, wrily, that piano wire should be strung across country
lanes to decapitate cyclists, His comments caused widespread
outrage, but did not breach the Code because they were not aimed
at any named individuals. However, faced with the wrath of hundreds
of readers, the writer voluntarily apologlsed for any unintended
~! Key
quesuons
edffors need
to aSk
memselves
when Code
{ssues ar{se
offence caused.
~; Briefings
on specific
areas where
the Coae
was swiftly resolved when the magazine published an apology online
ane in the magazine and mace a donation to charity. ~;~;~ ~uL
The PCC has issued cautionary ~Qv~c,,’~ to the press stressing the Importance
OW ng pan tictervour to get out o~ hand when covering high profile
nternat ona sport ng events
~ ,~ = ~ ~ ,, ~= ~{ ~h= =÷r=~{h~ nf {h= P~a= = {h=
protect on that it g yes specfca y to persona y affected
Indwiduats. But inevitably that means that some third party
After widespread criticism of press coverage of the Eure 96 soccer
tournament-- where the England v Germany match had been represented as
a re-run of War d War Two -- Lord Wakeham then PCC cha rman sounded a
................. ’ ’
warning anode or tne ]uu~ ~occer wane L, up
The p ese r ha d a responsibility not to encourage Brit sh sports fans to
behave in a disorder y manner, he said Th s covered not just comment about
other nations’ competitors, but also pFactical adv ce about how fans should
artici ate in or se f a e d ,=~,~rtfe
complaints cannot succeed. The PCC will not proceed with a third-
P art Y sam P taint without the sub’ect J s consent ¯
Although the Code does not cover complaints about groups of
pep ote wh e re t e h a’n mobjection
is often aga nst the tenor of
reporting the PCC sometimes addresses these wder ssues va
rulings on individual cases and guidance notes.
It has made clear that even if there may be no claim under the
P ,t w~s pert of th;e~2ss~ ~,a t; &’~ct robust,y and ,° pert, sea fssh,on the ~7%~2tio~oo2~;a~hc~c~ey b~ ~2222t:r oft;el ~2o~;:;~ o;
nation’s support for British sportsmen and women representing the r country, ’ Y -but
the yshould de nothingto
comment s passed off as fact
lis guidance note on asylum seekers, for example, ~Se~ ~:~efi~’,~
~,~r,e /4sytu~n Se~ket:£) suggested it was inaccurate to describe
people as illegal asylum seeker& They could not be illegal unless
they had been refusec asylum -- which by definition, asylum
seekers had not. It has suggested some stories risked breaching
the Code’s privacy rules, and publication in other cases could
nvolve a threat to children’s welfare.
The Commission has also warned against the gratuitous use of
nsensitive language --such as referring to mental health patients
See F~deR;~
9
psnel: Mental Heslth) as basket-cases, nutters or
psychos -- which could be discriminatory or inaccurate
Prejudicial or pejeraf:ive: Not ell references to an individual’s race,
colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or to any physical or
mental iJlness or disability, need to be avoided under the Code. To
be in breach of sub-clause 12L they must not only be prejudicial or
pejorative-- but also in a discriminatory manner.
MOD100036651
76