The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
For Distribution to CPs Id normally mean a named or a discriminatory way? Sub- ;laUsa 12ii. For example, a satirical cartoon depicting Israeli premier Ariel Sharon eating a baby while undeniably pejorative --was cleared by the PCC of being racist as it referred to him in his capac=ty as a ~ead of government rather than as a Jew. :Sharon v Th~ de~,nde~P Re~or~ 62 2::03) Genuine ralevanca: In sub-clause 12ii, the restriction relates only to details of race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental illness or disability, which are not genuinely ralevant to the story It does not cover the individual’s sex, mention of which is not itself discriminatory The PCC has held that it was relevant to mention, factually anti non-pejoratively, the sexuality of a pregnant lesbian in the context of a story that included comparisons with parenting by other same-sex couples. (%SBC: Sco~%r,~ ~,0 Sco:ffisf, f’Teb"~S :~ ~ne }AIbF]d. ReL~o:’t b~dd:.’6~ 200~ It was. however, not relevant to give details of religion in alz interview with a tie-manufacturer, especially in terms which might nave appeareo pejorative. :~37shkc v E ....... ? S~t~n:.!~U ~ap.: ? 40 997 Gander recognition: A Code cnange to cover discriminatory reporting of transgenoer people was introduced in 2005, after the passing of the Gender Recognition Act. m Clause 12i the woro ’genoer’ was substituted for ’sex’. This meant that indivldua|s unoergolng -- or WhO nao unoergone -- treatment for ganoer reaesignment were included in the categories offered protection from prejudicial or pejorative references. The Coda Committee decided against a change to the accompanying subclause 12ii -- which covers publication of discriminatory details that aren’t relevant to a story --because trans individuals, having suffered from gander dysphoria, would be protected under existing rules covenng physiCal illness MOD100036652 77
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 and 10:
thai they were token during the occ
Page 11 and 12:
For Distribution to CPs OF D £~FA~
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: For Distribution to CPs ~ reservati
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?