tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post6529629934882191463..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: 'I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC'MacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-1049532829029498662010-09-29T20:08:37.167+01:002010-09-29T20:08:37.167+01:00In this particular case the paper must have known ...In this particular case the paper must have known soon after publication that the story didn't stand up. A quick correction or clarification would have probably put the matter to bed. Instead the paper seem to have done everything possible to drag the matter out. By dragging it out they wasted the time of the complainant and should be punished accordingly.<br /><br />I don't see how requiring a paper to publish a swift correction after they have published information that is proved to be factually incorrect is an attack on the freedom of the press.Crispin Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422241837149899082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-6604046630567890772010-09-29T15:50:32.876+01:002010-09-29T15:50:32.876+01:00The PCC is ridiculous. I recently complained about...The PCC is ridiculous. I recently complained about Wolverhampton's Express and Star using the words 'plagued' and 'invaded' to refer to Travellers in the area, in a front page 'news' article (the online version attracted a horrendous amount of nakedly racist comments).<br /><br />The reply was that the clause on discrimination applies only to individuals, not to groups. <br /><br />So I asked them whether that meant I could say 'Jews are mean' but not 'X is mean because he's Jewish' and the reply was that yes I could, though it might breach the rules on 'accuracy'. <br /><br />So my complaint about Travellers is being dealt with under the 'accuracy' clause. Ludicrous.The Plashing Volehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021407602157515927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-39662363425370620352010-09-29T15:15:59.894+01:002010-09-29T15:15:59.894+01:00As much as I hate to even come close to agreeing w...As much as I hate to even come close to agreeing with one of the most vile men alive in the UK, I do think his point bears thinking about.<br /><br />If serious fines are introduced (they would have to be serious enough to dissuade the printing of a profitable lie and taking the fine over printing a boring truth), you can be sure that lawyers would be much more heavily involved. A PCC that could fine newspapers would have to be subject to legal challenges, which there would undoubtedly be. The PCC would then have to decide to act based on the strength of a legal case, and employ its own lawyers to defend it's position, and unfortunately legal intimidation works. <br /><br />I'm not saying the PCC doesn't need a serious reform, and arguably the problem is as much in our legal system that it slanted towards the rich, but any change involving fines would have to be careful to ensure that it isn't weakened say, for example, only being able to make a limited number of challenges because of the cost involved in any legal proceedings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-15670610223551071902010-09-28T23:13:59.822+01:002010-09-28T23:13:59.822+01:00Paul Dacre is arguably one of the great threats to...Paul Dacre is arguably one of the great threats to press self-regulation. His untenable position within the PCC and his ludicrous position on those who dare to criticise either the PCC or the Daily Mail's hysterical, fear-mongering content make me hope that we soon have a more robust body. A body that does act within days not weeks or months, enforces the regulatory codes and imposes substantial and punitive financial punishments on newspapers and their editors for knowingly and willingly publishing complete and utter tawddle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com