Express continues to lie about the EU

Monday's Daily Express front page claimed:


Macer Hall's article began:

Fury erupted last night after a European Union plot to “carve up Britain” by ­setting up a cross-Channel region was exposed.

The Express implied that this 'plot' was something new (albeit, as Roy Greenslade pointed out, slightly less new than when a similar story appeared in the Mail two days before). Yet mid-way through the article, after the inevitable quotes from UKIP and the TaxPayers' Alliance, Hall admitted:

Arc Manche was formally launched six years ago to forge closer links between local councils in southern English counties with their counterparts in northern France.

In fact, the Arc Manche network has been around since 1995.

So the Express eventually stated it's about 'forging closer links between councils' rather than a 'plot' to 'merge UK with France'. But how many Express readers will read - and believe - that after the screaming headline?

The EU's Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, has written to the Express to clarify the position:

We are as surprised as your readers to hear that your newspaper believes the EU wishes to merge Britain and France. The suggestion that the “EU wants to merge UK with France”, 2nd May, is absurd, and of course, untrue.

There is no proposal to create a new cross-channel region. What exist (and have done for 10 years) are a number of cross-border programmes aimed at things like boosting jobs and looking after the environment.

A similar note was also sent to the Daily Star, who ran a similar article under the ludicrous headline 'Clowns plan to turn us French'.

Today, the Express was at it again, claiming on the front page:


'Now we must fly the EU flag on our public buildings'. Really?

It's Macer Hall again:

Scores of public buildings around the country are being ordered to fly the blue-and-gold European Union flag to mark the occasion next Monday.

Officials will be expected to ensure the flag remains hoisted for a week, with a swingeing fine from Brussels threatened for those that disobey.

The Daily Star's version claimed:

Eurocrats were last night facing a revolt over a bid to force Britain to celebrate “Europe Day” next week.

Scores of public buildings are being ordered to fly the European Union flag to mark the occasion.

Officials will be expected to ensure it remains hoisted for a week from Monday. And those that disobey could be fined.

Or not, according to a letter sent to the Express from Jonathan Scheele, Head of European Commission Representation in the UK and Michael Shackleton, Head of European Parliament Information Office in the UK:

Regarding your front page of today, only 2 buildings in the UK are expected to fly the European flag for Europe Day and the Commission would not fine countries that did not do so. The rules that make this provision were passed in 2006 by all EU countries, including the UK. No other public building has to fly the flag on 9 May though some may choose to do so. Some schools want to do something to mark the day and ask us for ideas. We send these purely on demand and they in no way constitute “instructions”.

According to them the Editor of the Express, Hugh Whittow, has refused to publish their letter, thus failing to give a right of reply to those his paper has accused. And, of course, there's no way of complaining to the PCC since Richard Desmond withdrew from the self-regulatory system.

So the Express' campaign against the EU continues.

In March, the paper ran a front page headline claiming 'Cars face ban from all cities...another plan forced on us by crazy EU'. As Minority Thought blogged at the time, it wasn't true. Now these two stories within a few days.

What will the paper falsely claim the EU has banned/forced on us next?

PCC agrees there is no Union Flag ban, 'requests' the Mail 'take heed'

In February, the Mail, Telegraph, Richard Littlejohn and others claimed that Suffolk Police were happily displaying the rainbow flag for LGBT History Month but were totally 'forbidden' from ever flying the Union Flag.

There was, as usual, no such ban on the Union Flag. It was completely untrue, and had any of the 'journalists' actually bothered to contact the police, they would have been told that.

The Press Complaints Commission received two complaints about the Mail's article. The PCC took the view that these were third-party complaints and so would not 'examine' them under the terms of the Code. But they had gone to the trouble of asking Suffolk Police if they wanted to pursue a complaint, but the constabulary decided against it.

Here's the PCC's full ruling (sent to this blog by one of the complainants):

The complainants were concerned that the claim the Union Flag had been banned by the Chief Constable of Suffolk was inaccurate. A spokesperson for the police had confirmed on Anglia TV that this was not correct and that both the rainbow flag and Union Flag were flown outside the police headquarters.

The Commission fully acknowledged the concerns raised by the complainants in regard to the accuracy of the article. However, the Commission generally only considers complaints from those directly affected by the matters about which they complained.

In this instance, the article related directly to the Suffolk Constabulary and as such, the Commission would require its involvement in order to come to a view on the matter. It had therefore proactively contacted the police force, which had been aware of the article but had decided not to make a formal complaint about it.

While it emphasised that the concerns of the complainants were indeed legitimate, it did not consider in the absence of the participation of the police that it was in a position to investigate the matter, not least because it would not be possible to release any information about the outcome of the investigation or resolve the matter without the input of the Suffolk Constabulary.

That said, it recognised that the complainants had provided information which had a bearing on the accuracy of the claim made in the article and, as such, it requested that the newspaper would take heed of the points raised in the complaints and alter the article accordingly. In light of the police’s decision not to pursue a complaint against the newspaper, the Commission could not comment on the matter further.

So clearly the PCC agrees the story is rubbish. It seems quite obvious it breaches the Code of Practice clause on accuracy. Yet all the PCC have done is to have:

requested that the newspaper would take heed of the points raised in the complaints and alter the article accordingly.

Given that the PCC said they were not going to deal with the complaint formally, that is, perhaps, more than they might have done.

But as yet, the Mail have not taken heed of this request. Hopefully they will - although there appears to be no sanction for ignoring it.

And would an 'alteration' (which would be difficult, given the whole article is about the Union Flag 'ban') to the story, done without fanfare, matter two months later anyway?

UPDATE: The Mail have done more than 'alter' the original article - they've removed it completely. They've also edited Littlejohn's column to remove his reference to the ban. Yet in neither case have they explained why - there appears to be no clarification or apology. This way, they can just pretend they never said it in the first place.

Mail corrects migrant numbers error

The Mail has published a correction to one of its articles about migration:

This article has been amended. It previously contained a graphic that correctly listed the latest annual number of non-EU nationals admitted to each of ten European countries. However, a second table was wrongly headed "Non EU citizens to each square kilometre" instead of "Number of people to each square kilometre". We are happy to correct this point.

How clumsy. As the PCC explains:

The complainant was concerned that as a result of the error readers would be misled into thinking that Britain was home to many more non-EU immigrants than was actually the case.

Two ASA rulings against Express newspapers

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld one complaint against the Daily Express, and three complaints (regarding one ad) against the Sunday Express.

Both cases involve front page splashes about a free giveaway of toys and games where there was insufficient stock to satisfy demand.

For the daily, the adjudication says:

We noted there appeared to have been a lack of communication between the Express, Mattel and ELC resulting in the promotion going ahead when there was insufficient time or stock to satisfy demand. We understood that participants were told about the delay, but nonetheless considered that, because the toy was not available to collect as claimed, the promotion was misleading.

For the Sunday Express:

We considered that the Sunday Express and Argos had not demonstrated that they had made a reasonable estimate of demand for the board game and, moreover, had encouraged readers to purchase the Sunday Express as a precondition to obtaining the board game when the number of items was limited. We concluded that the promotion breached the code.

The ASA has ruled neither promotion should run again in its current form, but since these were one-off giveaways, they probably weren't going to be repeated anyway. And there's no penalty other than a written ruling that few people will ever see.

So while Richard Desmond may have removed his newspapers from the jurisdiction of the Press Complaints Commission, we can be sure the ASA will still be holding them rigorously to account. Ahem.

(Thanks to Amit for the tip)

How the Mail's 'report a comment' system 'works'

The PCC have posted the details of a case where a complaint against a comment on the Mail website was ignored:

Complaint:

Diocesan Director of Communications, Gavin Drake, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published an online article about a vicar's prosecution for downloading child pornography which was accompanied by an inaccurate comment from a reader. The reader had asserted that the Church had been aware of the vicar's crimes for years when this was not the case. The complainant contacted the website moderator with his concerns but was aggrieved that no action was taken.

Resolution:

The newspaper explained that the comment had been post-moderated and the moderator was aware of the abuse report logged by the complainant. It acknowledged that there had been a lapse in moderation on this occasion. While the complainant remained disappointed that the newspaper had not responded when he first reported the problem, the complaint was resolved when the newspaper permanently removed the comment in question.

The Mail's subtle depiction of depression

On Friday, the PCC tweeted a link to an article on the Guardian website which reinforced the:

importance of responsible reporting of mental health issues.

Mary O'Hara wrote:

Ask people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness – especially a serious one like Schizophrenia – what they think about media coverage of the issue and certain words come up time and again. Words like: 'offensive', 'stigmatising', 'sensationalist', 'inaccurate' and 'distorted'...

The natural next question to ask is: why? Why is it that this overwhelming sense of negativity is what people are left with when they read newspapers or watch television programmes where mental illness is featured?

...

To find an eloquent summing up of why what is written and reported by the media matters we need look no further than the seminal book by Otto Wahl, "Media Madness."

In it Wahl writes: "Media depictions, in their persistent and pervasive inaccurate stereotypes perpetuate the negative attitudes of the public toward people who experience mental disorders and thus help to maintain the stigma, rejection and discrimination that has added to their burden.

"For people with mental illness the images of mental illness that the media currently present have very important, very personal, and very painful consequences."

Last year, Mail columnist Janet Street-Porter was rightly criticised for her article dismissing depression as just a 'trendy new illness'. Such was the backlash that several readers' letters were added to the online version to counter her views.

But it seems the Mail hasn't learnt its lesson and last week ran an article by Angela Patmore, which was little more than an extended plug for her book and which told people with depression that the solution was to 'just get a grip'. The Mail decided to present the article like this:


Will the PCC be reminding the Mail about the 'importance of responsible reporting of mental health issues'?

(Thanks to Angry Mob, who initially tweeted a photo of the above article, and to Kat Arney)

PCC drops outstanding complaints against Express, Star

Two days ago it was announced that all publications owned by Northern and Shell (N&S) would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Press Complaints Commission.

However, one reader of this blog has been told by the PCC that they are also dismissing all unresolved complaints - lodged prior to the announcement - against the Daily Express and Daily Star.

He complained to the PCC on 9 December about one article in the Express and one in the Star. On 16 December he was told:

Your complaint will now be passed to the Commission with a view to it making a ruling under the Code. We would hope to be in touch with you with a decision within the next thirty five working days.

After hearing the news of a couple of days ago, he asked the PCC what was going to happen with his complaints. Here's their response:

Thank you for your email yesterday in regard to your complaint against the Daily Star and Daily Express.

The PCC formally considers complaints about the vast majority of UK newspapers and magazines, provided that they subscribe to our funding body, the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof).

Owing to a funding dispute between Northern & Shell – the publishers of the newspapers – and PressBof, Northern & Shell do not currently subscribe to the system of self-regulation independently overseen by the PCC. As you correctly noted in your email, the Daily Star and Daily Express do not therefore fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction. I understand that you submitted your complaint prior to the withdrawal of the publishers’ subscription and the office informed you that the Commission would make a ruling on the complaint.

Unfortunately, the Commission did not reach a decision in regard to your complaint before Northern & Shell withdrew its subscription to PressBof and, now that the newspapers do not fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction, it is unable to do so. I understand that this must be frustrating for you, and I apologise that the Commission did not reach a decision while the newspapers still fell under its jurisdiction.

In the circumstances, you may wish to complain directly to the publications. If you wish to do so, their contact details are as follows:

Daily Express
The Northern & Shell Building, 10 Lower Thames Street, London EC3R 6EN
Switchboard Tel: 020 8612 7000 / News Desk Tel: 020 7098 2982
news.desk@express.co.uk
expressletters@express.co.uk
www.express.co.uk
Editor: Peter Hill

Daily Star
The Northern & Shell Building, 10 Lower Thames Street, London EC3R 6EN
Switchboard Tel: 0208 612 7000 / News Desk: 0208 612 7373
news@dailystar.co.uk
starletters@dailystar.co.uk
www.dailystar.co.uk
Editor: Dawn Neesom

You may also wish to consult a solicitor on the matter. If you would like the PCC to forward your complaint directly to the publication, please let us know.

I am sorry that we are unable to assist you further. Do contact us if you have any queries.

Richard Desmond and the PCC

Imagine this, if you can: you pick up a copy of the Daily Star and see a front page story that you don't think is accurate. You think 'I should make a complain about this'. Who do you turn to?

Well, as of today, not the newspaper regulator, the Press Complaints Commission.

They (and the Press Standards Board of Finance) have decided that the Star, the Daily Express, their Scottish and Sunday editions and a host of barrel-scraping celebrity magazines - in other words, every magazine and 'newspaper' published by Richard Desmond's Northern and Shell (N&S) - are now outside of their jurisdiction.

The PCC is funded through PressBoF, which collects a voluntary 'registration fee' from publishers who want to be part of the self-regulatory system. PressBoF explains:

PressBoF's move follows a decision by the publisher - the second occasion on which this has happened since 2008 - that it no longer wishes to pay the voluntary industry levy to support the work of the PCC. Every effort was made by the PressBoF Board to reverse that decision before Northern & Shell's membership of the system lapsed on 31st December 2010.

This decision means that the Northern & Shell titles will now automatically cease to be covered by the work of the PCC, which will as a result of the publisher's decision no longer deal with complaints from members of the public about them, or of the Editors' Code Committee.

Well, that'll teach Northern & Shell, won't it?

So if someone does want to complain about one of the N&S titles, but doesn't want to take legal action, what can they do? According to the PCC:

The Commission will continue to assist individuals to frame their complaints about published articles and will direct individuals to the relevant departments of the titles within the Northern & Shell group.

But we don't know, at this stage, how N&S will handle such complaints - or if they handle them at all.

As Roy Greenslade says:

If Desmond's editors choose to ignore complaints altogether, nothing can be done for the complainant.

Assuming they will accept complaints, we don't know what rules N&S are now playing by (not that the Star or Express seemed to much care about those rules anyway). Will they still (claim to) adhere to the Editor's Code of Practice? Will they produce their own in-house Code? Will they tell their readers how their complaints system will work?

So far, N&S have declined to comment about these developments. We don't even know for sure why they've decided to opt-out.

In December, the Independent on Sunday's 'Feral Beast' claimed:

Richard Desmond has finally had enough of the frequency with which the paper is referred to the PCC.

Roy Greenslade added:

I understand that the Northern & Shell letter offered no explanation for the decision to stop funding Pressbof, merely stating that it no longer suited Desmond's business needs.

Whether this means that his opposition is due to the number of complaints to the PCC about his papers' ethical lapses or whether it is simply about money is unclear.

[UPDATE: The PCC, in responding to the Media Standards Trust, have said: 'all we have been informed is that the decision was taken for monetary reasons.']

Of course, it is easy to argue that this makes very little difference as the PCC has never had much success in holding these papers to account anyway. After the regulator actually upheld a complaint against the Daily Star over a completely misleading front page story, the paper continued to publish the same awful, untrue rubbish they did before. Now they've decided to opt-out of the system altogether.

As Martin Belam said:

Self-regulation becomes self-selecting regulation

Clearly, Desmond and N&S do not take the PCC very seriously. But what now? Greenslade quotes two MPs:

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, said: "I regard the exclusion as a very serious development. The committee is on record as saying that if self-regulation is to have any credibility it must encompass all the major publishers. This now creates doubt about its efficacy."

He noted that Desmond's exclusion does "carry some consequences" (as outlined above). Another committee member, Paul Farrelly, agreed. He thought Express Newspapers might find judges in libel and privacy cases more hostile towards papers that are not regulated by the PCC.

However, he also said that the exclusion illustrated that publishers lacked effective sanctions against one of their number willing to thumb their nose at self-regulation, adding that it further exposed the PCC as being "ineffective and toothless."

Will Gore, the PCC's Public Affairs Director, who told Jamie Thunder last year:

'Ultimately if major newspapers say “There’s no point in this system anymore, we’re not going to bother with it” eventually it will start to fall apart and in that scenario there will have to be something else.'

So will the PCC 'fall apart'? Somehow, it seems unlikely. It will probably carry on as usual, reassuring everyone who listens that the system still 'works' when it clearly doesn't. Indeed, their website claims:

Self regulation works because the newspaper and magazine publishing industry is committed to it.

And what happens to Desmond? Well, it appears there's nothing to stop his papers carrying on as usual - filled with all the lies, hatred and dreadful 'journalism' that have filled their pages since he bought them. Will it get worse now the PCC fig-leaf has gone? Can it possibly get worse?

As Roy Greenslade says:

He is a rogue owner running rogue newspapers.

Sun admits Al-Qaeda didn't threaten Coronation Street

The Sun has acknowledged that its front page splash of 9 December about an 'Al-Qaeda threat' to Coronation Street was rubbish:

Further to our article about increased security at Coronation Street's studios for their live 50th anniversary episode (December 9), we would like to make clear that while cast and crew were subject to full body searches, there was no specific threat from Al-Qaeda as we reported. We apologise for the misunderstanding and are happy to set the record straight.

Their admission that the story was nonsense is hardly a surprise - the story never rang true and was swiftly denied by Greater Manchester Police.

The PCC, when tweeting about the clarification, pointed out the apology was on 'page 2 and online'. Yet the original was rather more prominent than that:


The first clause of the Code of Practice points out that errors must be corrected with 'due prominence'. Yet the Code Committee Secretary, Ian Beales, said at the start of December that it was a 'myth' to say corrections are buried.

But is it really good enough for a front page splash to be 'clarified' by a couple of sentences on page two?

(The Sun's original article has won 5CC's Tabloid Bullshit of the Month Award for December 2010)

The PCC and Littlejohn (cont.)

As the Press Complaints Commission launches an investigation into Richard Littlejohn's remarks about Jody McIntyre (see here, here and here), the regulator has ruled on yet another complaint against the Mail columnist.

On 23 November, Littlejohn wrote:

When I went to Sunday school, a million years ago, we were taught to love our neighbour.

I don’t recall ever being told that we should take an ‘eye for an eye’ literally. Or that the punishment for homosexuality was death.

Aged six, we didn’t even know what homosexuality was, even though we’d been warned to steer clear of that chap who was always hanging round the swimming pool.

Three people complained to the PCC about this insidious remark. Here's their ruling:

The complainants were concerned that the article implied that homosexual individuals were paedophiles.

The Commission acknowledged the complainants' concerns that the columnist had equated homosexuality with paedophilia. However, while the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) prevent newspapers from making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's sexual orientation, it does not cover generalised remarks about groups or categories of people. Given that the complainants were concerned that the article discriminated against homosexual individuals in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors' Code of Practice on these grounds.

So while the PCC do 'acknowledge concerns' about the remark they decide to do nothing about it. Why? Because the Code only refers to discrimination against the individual. As one of the complainants told this blog:

'I expected them to clear him by saying that he hadn't specifically said that homosexuals were paedophiles, and that was just our interpretation. Instead they acknowledge the slur, but say discrimination is totally fine if it is against all the people in a group rather than just individuals.'

Feeble PCC fails to take on Littlejohn

At the end of September, Richard Littlejohn wrote:

...any Afghan climbing off the back of a lorry in Dover goes automatically to the top of the housing list.

Blogger Primly Stable called Littlejohn a 'liar' and complained to the Press Complaints Commission. This claim not only breached the first clause of the Code of Practice about publication of 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information' but also conflicted with a PCC guidance note on reporting immigration issues that warns of:

the danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that despite all that, the PCC ruled there was little wrong with what Littlejohn had said:

The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern over the statement; however, it had to consider the remark in the context of the article in which it appeared. The article had been clearly presented as a comment piece, in which the columnist expressed his concern that a soldier who had served in Afghanistan had not been granted a council house. The Commission considered that the columnist had exaggerated and simplified the example of housing immigrants for the purpose of stressing his assertion that the “system of government exists simply to punish those who do the right thing”.

It emphasised that the newspaper should take care when using such rhetorical methods of expression that readers would not be misled into understanding that they reflected statements of fact.

In this instance, on balance it considered that readers would be aware that the columnist was not accurately reflecting the government’s policy on the housing of immigrants, but that he was making an amplified statement for rhetorical effect. It was therefore the Commission’s view that, on this occasion, readers generally would not be misled in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

In its favour, the ruling does accuse Littlejohn of exaggeration and simplicity. But the rest of it defies belief.

Although the PCC regards that as the end of the matter, Primly Stable does not. She has challenged the PCC to back up its claim that readers would not be mislead or think the situation outlined by Littlejohn is merely 'rhetorical'.

She points out that on the original news story on the Mail website that Littlejohn was commenting on, there are lots of positively-rated comments which suggest otherwise. Such as:

“He should just have told that council he was an illegal immigrant from Afghanistan....And he would have been housed immediately!!”

“expect no better from Bracknell Forest Council, because they are fast-tracking immigrants to the head of the housing queue ... just the same as all councils throughout Britain are daily doing”

“He should go back to Aghanistan, throw away his British passport and come back as a 'refugee'. Apartment in Mayfair awaits him.”

And then there are these recent Mail articles about migrants and 'queue jumping':


A drip-drip-drip of stories claiming migrants do jump the housing queue. So on what basis does the PCC think Mail readers would not take Littlejohn's claim literally?

Primly Stable compares this ruling with a recent resolved case where the Sunday Telegraph had to say:

We have been asked to make clear that the Metamorphosis Centre in west London (report, June 13) is not Britain's first to treat thumb sucking.

She says:

The [PCC] proudly boasts of its rapid response to the shocking inaccuracy that led to one organisation being called “the first specialist thumb-sucking clinic in London” when in fact it was the second. But it is happy to give the seal of approval to a newspaper that publishes lies in order to whip up racial tensions.

Adding:

Had Littlejohn compared the soldier’s situation with, for example, a convicted criminal who had been released from prison and promptly housed in local authority accommodation than he may have had some grounds to claim that he was making a point about people who “do the right thing” losing out. But he didn’t. He chose to make something up entirely. To lie. And with this ruling the PCC has said such conduct is perfectly acceptable.

PCC rejects complaints about 'bacon smell offends Muslims' story

Last month, the Mail reported that a cafe in Stockport will have to remove its extractor fan 'because the smell of...frying bacon 'offends' Muslims'.

This wasn't true.

The fan has to be removed because the cafe owners (one of whom is Muslim) were refused planning permission for it. Moreover, the only person who officially complained about the smell during the planning application process was a member of the non-Muslim family who lived next door to the cafe.

Three people complained to the PCC about the story - versions of which also appeared in the Metro and Telegraph - but it has rejected the complaints. Apparently, despite the Mail saying the fan was being 'torn down' because 'the smell of frying bacon 'offends' Muslims' the PCC says:

readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission.

Here's the full PCC ruling :

The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.

While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.

The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.

However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.

While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

(Hat-tip to Dave, one of the complainants)

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has written an excellent post which points out that the vast majority of the 544 comments that appeared on the Mail's article were written by people who had clearly been 'misled' - despite the PCC saying that 'would not' happen. He writes:

The articles were clearly prejudicial because the headlines and intros were misleading. The end result was to feed anti-Muslim bigotry.

To build a story based on one man's unsupported statement when it involves the delicate matter of religious intolerance shows a reckless disregard for the pubic interest and social cohesion.

In the PCC's opinion, "the body of the articles" in the Mail and Telegraph made the situation "clear."

Come off it! The papers did not run this story because it involved the removal of an extractor fan. They ran it because it fitted their own anti-Muslim agendas.

Star thumbs its nose at the PCC

Here's the front page of today's Daily Star:


It's free stuff, reality TV and a bit about Muslims. It's the usual topics and presented in the usual misleading way.

The main headline, apparently an 'exclusive', says 'Cowell: My feud with Cheryl.' Yet in the accompanying article, Cowell is quoted as saying:

"No. Cheryl and I haven’t had a fight, yet!"

So the exclusive about their feud is that they haven't had one.

Just above that on the front page is the headline 'Love-rift Kara quits Strictly' which is enough to make anyone believe Strictly Come Dancing contestant Kara Tointon has quit the show.

But the headline on the accompanying article says:


So from 'quits' to 'may leave'.

Peter Dyke's article says:

Kara Tointon is feared to be on the brink of waltzing away from Strictly.

Ex-EastEnders star Kara Tointon is devastated after her dance partner Artem Chigvintsev ended their fling.

Yesterday she failed to turn up at a dress rehearsal.

Yet at the end, a BBC spokesman says:

“Kara has tonsillitis and had to cut short rehearsals on Friday and postpone her appearance on It Takes Two. She has seen a doctor and received treatment. But she is determined to dance in Saturday’s live show.”

Ah. Now whether Tointon is ill or not, the fact is she hadn't 'quit' the show when the Star published that front page.

When the PCC adjudicated against a Daily Star story on 25 September, they said:

...the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

Therefore, you might think the Star would be more careful about putting totally misleading headlines on its front page. But that would suppose the paper was concerned about that upheld complaint, or the consequences of any future PCC ruling against them.

Instead, they appear to be thumbing their nose at the ineffectual regulator.

'I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC'

There is another highly recommended article on Martin Robbins' Lay Scientist blog today.

This one is written by Richard Wilson and it explains his seven-month battle to get the Daily Mail to correct an article - 'The Great Asbestos Hysteria' - by Christopher Booker.

The Mail eventually published this clarification but the wording suggests they substantially stand by the original piece.

But Wilson's reflections on the process of dealing with the PCC (and, indeed, the Mail) are worth noting:

The newspaper's claim that an HSE study had found the dangers of white asbestos cement to be "insignificant" was also easy to disprove: Booker had made the self-same claim in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2008, and been rebutted in detail by the HSE.

Neither was it hard to show that the Mail had got it wrong in claiming that "it is virtually impossible to extract even a single dangerous fibre" from white asbestos cement. An HSE lab report from 2007 notes that "the claim that respirable airborne chrysotile fibres are not able to be released from asbestos cement products was refuted by the individual airborne fibres sampled during the breaking of the test sample with a hammer".

In theory, this should have been the end of the matter. According to the PCC's code, "a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence". What happened instead, in my view, speaks volumes both about the character of the Daily Mail, and the credibility of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory body.

After a delay of several weeks, the PCC forwarded me a dismissive response from the Daily Mail's executive managing editor, Robin Esser. While acknowledging some minor errors, Esser insisted that the disputed HSE study did indeed back up Booker's views on asbestos. The fact that the HSE had put out a statement explicitly rebutting this merely proved that "those responsible for HSE press releases are similarly unable to grasp the significance of findings published by their own statisticians". For good measure, Esser accused me (falsely, just in case you're wondering) of being "allied to a well-organised and well-funded commercial lobby", who "stand to benefit financially" from the "anti-asbestos campaign".

Rather than take ownership of the process, assess the various bits of evidence and come to a judgement, the PCC instead asked me to go through this new set of claims and produce a further response. Here I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC. If a newspaper digs in its heels and simply denies all the evidence that's been presented, there doesn't seem to be much that the PCC can do except bat the issue back to the complainant.

And having been through this process, what of the PCC's 'fast, free and fair' slogan?

More time-consuming exchanges followed, with long gaps in between, while we awaited a response from the Daily Mail. In the end we won, sort of. The newspaper agreed to make some amendments to the text of the article, publish a short correction, and write a private apology to Michael Lees over Booker's comments about his wife. But to get even this far has taken seven months, and a substantial time investment, while the Daily Mail seems to have been able to drag the process out with impunity. "Free", perhaps – but hardly "fast", or "fair".

When someone complained about Richard Littlejohn's claim that most robberies in the UK were committed by Eastern Europeans, the Mail took nearly six weeks to reply to the PCC. In total, it took the paper two months to correct a claim that was obviously false.

Here's what Mail Editor Paul Dacre said in July, when he argued that fines for serious breaches of the Editor's Code shouldn't be introduced:

It cannot be said too often that the imposition of sizable fines would result in complainants and particularly the press having to use lawyers to defend their interests - signalling the death of a FREE fast system of complaints adjudication.

If it is taking seven months to resolve a complaint, this system is neither fast nor alive and well.

'Lack of care'

On 15 July, the Star put this on its front page:


The story was about a plan for a few 'squat toilets' to be installed in a shopping centre in Rochdale.

There were several problems with the story - the most obvious being that two of the claims on the front page were clearly inaccurate: the toilets weren't 'Muslim-only', and they weren't to be paid for by the taxpayer.

Jamie at Exclarotive blogged about the story at the time, including how a Rochdale Councillor denied the 'inaccurate reports in some national newspapers'. The Star then claimed they had 'blocked' (see what they did there?) the 'Muslim-only loos' when an anonymous source said the plan was being reconsidered.

Now we learn that the PCC has upheld a complaint against the Star, which has published the adjudication on page 2 of today's paper (there appears to be no mention of it on the front page, where the original appeared):

The complainant - who did not represent Rochdale Council or the Rochdale Exchange Centre, neither of whom had complained to the Commission - said that it was inaccurate to say that the toilets were “Muslim-only”: the facilities, which were common to many countries, would be available to all.

In addition, the decision to pay for the ‘nile pans’ was taken by the shopping centre itself, rather than the local council. It did not therefore involve taxpayers’ money.

The newspaper said that - while non-Muslims could have used the loos - they were designed with Muslims in mind.

Nonetheless, it accepted that the headline was inaccurate in that non-Muslims would be free to use the toilets.

It also accepted that the loos were paid for by a private developer. It suggested the publication of the following correction on page 2, in addition to the removal of the article from its website:

"Our 15 July article said that squat style loos at Rochdale Exchange Centre were for Muslims only and were a waste of the council’s money. We are pleased to make clear that the loos may be used by non-Muslims and that they were paid for by the developer."

The complainant asked for the newspaper to publish an apology.

That first sentence is interesting because it seems that although the PCC regards this a third-party complaint, where there are two organisations that could be considered a 'first party', it has upheld it anyway.

Good.

Here's the PCC's adjudication:

In this prominent story, there were two clear errors of fact which, in the circumstances, would have misled readers in a significant manner: the toilets could not be described as “Muslim only”; and were not paid for by the local council.

While the newspaper had accepted that the article was wrong - and offered to correct the item - the Commission was particularly concerned at the lack of care the newspaper had taken in its presentation of the story.

This led to a breach of Clause 1 of the Code which makes clear that newspapers must “take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

The complaint was upheld.

But the Star still doesn't seem to have actually apologised.

And for the PCC to be concerned about the 'lack of care' the Star takes over its front page headlines? That suggests this headline was, somehow, a mistake, rather than calculated to whip up resentment and hatred.

Surely they know - after the McCanns, Peaches Geldolf, the ash cloud, GTA: Rothbury, 'Lamps and Bleakley', Cheryl Cole, Big Brother and countless other examples - that the Star's presentation of stories show (what can generously be called) this 'lack of care' far too often?

(Hat tip to James)

Trust

The results of a new survey on public trust make grim reading for the newspapers, particularly the tabloids.

YouGov asked 1,854 adults 'how much do you trust the following to tell the truth?' with a number of different professions listed - politicians, doctors, journalists, police and others.

Compared to results from 2003, trust in the media has declined significantly across the board.

Here are the results:

BBC News journalists
Total trust: 60% (81% in 2003)
Total not much/no trust: 34%

ITV News journalists
Total trust: 49% (82% in 2003)
Total not much/no trust: 43%

Journalists on 'upmarket' newspapers
Total trust: 41% (65% in 2003)
Total not much/no trust: 51%

Journalists on 'mid-market' newspapers (Mail, Express)
Total trust: 21% (36% in 2003)
Total not much/no trust: 71%

Journalists on 'red-top tabloid' newspapers
Total trust: 10% (14% in 2003)
Total not much/no trust: 83%

Of the 25 professions listed, BBC came 6th, the mid-market newspapers 15th and the red-top tabloids 25th. Last. Behind estate agents and, amusingly, EU officials.

The results aren't a one-off. An Ofcom survey in May 2010 showed newspapers were the least trusted source for news. The Committee for Standards in Public Life's 2008 Report showed TV news journalists - trusted by 46% of people - far ahead of broadsheet (36%) and tabloid (10%) journalists.

It is hard not to conclude that the broadcast regulator Ofcom (with its power to fine for serious breaches of its Code) does a far better job of maintaining standards - and therefore trust - than the PCC (with its power to allow newspapers to bury two sentence 'clarifications').

As Minority Thought points out, it was only in July that Mail Editor Paul Dacre was happily telling us all that:

They [critics] will probably never concede the truth, which is that the PCC has over the years been a great success story. Britain's newspapers are infinitely better behaved than they were two decades ago. Yes, the industry can do more to improve standards. We will rise to our challenge.

The public doesn't seem to be able to see them rising to the challenge and don't seem in awe of this great improvement in behaviour. That's why the number of people who trust tabloid journalists a 'great deal' is, err, 1%. That's why the number of people who have a 'great deal' of trust in journalists on the so-called 'mid-market' papers (like the one Dacre edits) is, err, 1%.

Anyone would think Dacre had some vested interest in plunging his head in the sand and pretending everything is fine.

It would, however, have been great to see Dacre's reaction to the fact that news journalists from the BBC, that organisation he seems to have such an irrational hatred of, are trusted far more - far, far more - than journalists on his paper.

(via Roy Greenslade and Minority Thought)

PCC takes stand against pejorative language...sometimes

The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint from Clare Balding about an AA Gill column in the Sunday Times.

Gill had 'reviewed' Balding's TV programme Britain by Bike and referred to her as a 'dyke on a bike', said she looked 'like a big lesbian' and he also indulged in some crude innuendo. She complained to the paper but an obnoxious reply from Sunday Times editor John Witherow compounded the problem.

So Balding wrote to the PCC, arguing the comments breached Clause 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice, which says:

The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

The paper issued a feeble defence:

There was no reason why – in an age where homosexuality carried little social stigma – the reviewer could not discuss the sexuality of a TV presenter who had no problem with being openly gay.

Calling someone a 'dyke' and a 'big lesbian' is not 'discussing sexuality' but hurling crude insults. Can the Sunday Times really not see the difference?

Thankfully, the PCC has ruled in Balding's favour:

The right to legitimate freedom of expression is a key part of an open and democratic society and something which the Commission has sought to defend in the past. In this case, the columnist was clearly entitled to his opinion about both the programme and the complainant. As the paper had pointed out, the Commission has previously upheld his right to offer such opinions in his columns.

Of course, freedom of expression is – and should be – appropriately restricted by the Editors’ Code of Practice. Clause 12 of the Code is clear: newspapers must avoid prejudicial, pejorative or irrelevant reference to (amongst other things) an individual’s sexual orientation. The Commission itself has said that the use of pejorative synonyms for homosexual individuals would represent a certain breach of the Code.

In this case, the Commission considered that the use of the word “dyke” in the article – whether or not it was intended to be humorous – was a pejorative synonym relating to the complainant’s sexuality. The context was not that the reviewer was seeking positively to “reclaim” the term, but rather to use it to refer to the complainant’s sexuality in a demeaning and gratuitous way. This was an editorial lapse which represented a breach of the Code, and the newspaper should have apologised at the first possible opportunity.

If Clause 12 is to mean anything, the PCC has got this one right.

But there still seems to be a problem with the inconsistency of the PCC.

It has said that the use of 'dyke' in this article was pejorative, demeaning and gratuitous.

Yet only a few weeks ago, when two readers complained about the Sun's use of 'bender' to refer to a gay man, the PCC hid behind its 'third-party' rule to ignore the complaint. It didn't reject the complaint, it didn't even consider it.

But who could argue that 'bender' wasn't also pejorative, demeaning and gratuitous?

Sun publishes - but buries - two clarifications

The Sun have published two tiny clarifications this week.

First, on Monday, this one about Lou Al-Chamaa which appeared on page 18:

We have been asked to make clear Lou Al-Chamaa, singer Leona Lewis's ex-boyfriend, did not demand a seven-figure payoff from the singer as we reported on July 9. We are happy to set the record straight.

Today, on page 22, Jessie Wallace:

Actress Jessie Wallace has asked us to point out that while she used a voice coach preparing to play Coronation Street star Pat Phoenix in a BBC film about the soap, she did not have a voice coach on set, filming was not stopped and producers never considered giving her fewer lines as we reported on July 22.

We apologise for any distress caused.

However, at time of writing, if you search the Sun's website for 'Lou Al-Chamaa' or 'Jessie Wallace', neither clarification appears in the results. It's almost as if they're trying to pretend they never happened...

Will the PCC act over Daily Star Sunday's 'needless abbreviation'?

Primly Stable has looked at a story in yesterday's Daily Star Sunday which carried the headline 'Behind bras: Tranny strip-search fury'.

As Primly Stable points out, there's no evidence produced that anyone is actually 'furious' and in any case these are draft proposals that have yet to be approved.

But what of the language used by the paper?

In January 2010, the PCC made what it called a 'landmark ruling on the use of terminology in this area' by saying:

Taking into account the full context of the piece, the Commission considered that the use of the word ‘tranny' - which was a needless abbreviation, held by many to be offensive - was pejorative. The complaint was upheld on this point.

So how have the Star felt able to run this headline in the print edition? The online headline is different but not much better: 'Prisons: Female guards may be forced to search male trannies'. And it's not the case that the word has been abbreviated to fit the headline space as Rick Lyons' article also refers to 'tranny prisoners'.

Trans Media Watch have a list of terms they consider derogatory and say the media should avoid. The list includes three terms the Star uses: 'tranny', 'sex-change' and 'any 'comedy' reference to genitalia'. Press For Change also say the terms are 'inappropriate'.

So if the PCC's ruling that 'tranny' is 'perjorative' and 'needless' is really a 'landmark' decision, they should have no problem holding the Daily Star Sunday to account for using it.

Accuracy is best

The Press Complaints Commission has published details of the latest complaint involving the Daily Mail, who this time stand accused of editing a letter from a reader and publishing it under a headline that misrepresented her views:

Mrs Clare Byam-Cook, the author of "What to Expect When You're Breastfeeding - And What if You Can't", complained to the Press Complaints Commission through Lewis Silkin solicitors. She expressed concern that a letter she had submitted for publication had been edited and, most importantly, published under the misleading headline ‘When Bottle is Best'.

In fact, she said, her letter was intended to promote better support for women who wished to breastfeed - which in the complainant's view was preferable. The fact that readers might have interpreted it as an attempt to promote bottle-feeding was, said the complainant, likely to damage her reputation.

The resolution:

The matter was resolved when the PCC negotiated publication of a further letter from the complainant in the newspaper. The heading of the letter was ‘Breastfeeding babies' and the text is reproduced below:

My letter of 25 June was published under the misleading headline ''When Bottle is Best'. I would like to make clear that my letter was not in fact promoting bottle feeding for babies over breastfeeding. It was making the point that changing the 'Breast is Best' slogan - as recommended by Breastfeeding network Chairman Lesley Backhouse - is not the solution to improve breastfeeding rates. Most mothers want to breastfeed, they just need more practical help when they are finding it difficult.
Clare Byam-Cook