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?

'Legitimising name calling'

On Wednesday, the Daily Star reported on research from Staffordshire University that '93 per cent of fans believe homophobia has no place in football.'

The editorial that accompanied the story said gay footballers should come out:

Yes, there are still isolated incidents of hate. But the vast majority of modern supporters would not bat an eyelid. There is nothing to fear.

Yet this is the same paper that, in an editorial a few weeks ago, said:


Yes, it was a reaction to a story about gay asylum seekers but the stark wording of the headline suggested the Star was giving a wider view.

And this is the same paper that, in December 2009, was reporting the views of Max Clifford that gay footballers should not come out:

He said: “It’s a very sad state of affairs. But it’s a fact that homophobia in football is as strong now as it was 10 years ago...

Max now believes any star would be unwise to follow the example of Welsh rugby star Gareth Thomas who has come out as gay. He warned: “If he did, it would effectively be his career over.”

Of course, one reason why gay footballers might not wish to tell everyone about their sexuality is so they can avoid childish 'jokes' such as this one. From the Daily Star:


That article claims homophobic supporters sang a 'sick song' which the Star then goes to the trouble of repeating, just so any other bigot who might want to sing it will know all the words.

And several years ago, when Steven Gerrard had topped a 'sexiest footballer' poll of gay fans, the Star ran a picture of him with a handbag photoshopped onto his arm.

On Tuesday, the Star's right-wing, red-top rival proved calling homosexuals crude names is hardly a thing of the past. The Sun's Gordon Smart wrote a (fascinating) article about Louie Spence being at a party hosted by the Beckhams.

The headline:


Clause 12 of the Editor's Code of Practice 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.

As No Rock and Roll Fun points out:

You can't throw a word like 'bender' into a headline about a gay man. Not in a newspaper that still pretends it has any sort of standards. Homophobic name-calling isn't the same as a witty headline.

Moreover, Smart also said:

Pineapple Dance Studios star Louie, or Louise as I like to call him.

No Rock and Roll Fun again:

Do you see? Because he's gay, Gordon has given him a woman's name.

And it's not the first time - Smart said the same thing on 9 June:

Now Pineapple Dance Studios hero LOUIE SPENCE - Louise as I call him.

A couple of weeks ago, when Spence had done a dance routine with Vernon Kay, Smart renamed him Vernon Gay:

On other occasions, the Sun has called Spence 'flamboyant', 'master mincer' and a 'fruit'.

This isn't confined to Spence either. When Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe said he wasn't gay in an interview in early March, the Sun decided to go with the headline:


The story said Radcliffe had:

been plagued by speculation he is more Botter than Potter.

And the Sun isn't the only Murdoch paper using such unacceptable language. Carrie Dunn at The F Word reports that in last week's Sunday Times, tiresome controversy-seeker AA Gill said:

Some time ago, I made a cheap and frankly unnecessary joke about Clare Balding looking like a big lesbian. And afterwards somebody tugged my sleeve to point out that she is a big lesbian, and I felt foolish and guilty. So I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise. Sorry.

Now back to the dyke on a bike, puffing up the nooks and crannies at the bottom end of the nation.

Balding, unsurprisingly, was offended and wrote to editor John Witherow. His response was as ignorant and arrogant as it could have been:

In my view some members of the gay community need to stop regarding themselves as having a special victim status and behave like any other sensible group that is accepted by society. Not having a privileged status means, of course, one must accept occasionally being the butt of jokes.

A person’s sexuality should not give them a protected status. Jeremy Clarkson, perhaps the epitome of the heterosexual male, is constantly jeered at for his dress sense (lack of), adolescent mind-set and hair style.

He puts up with it as a presenter’s lot and in this context I hardly think that AA Gill’s remarks were particularly 'cruel', especially as he ended by so warmly endorsing you as a presenter.

So he doesn't think there's anything wrong with calling someone a 'dyke'. Balding, rightly, wasn't impressed:

When the day comes that people stop resigning from high office, being disowned by their families, getting beaten up and in some instances committing suicide because of their sexuality, you may have a point.

This is not about me putting up with having the piss taken out of me, something I have been quite able to withstand, it is about you legitimising name calling. ‘Dyke’ is not shouted out in school playgrounds (or as I’ve had it at an airport) as a compliment, believe me.

It may be your job to defend your writer and your editorial team but if you really think that homophobia does not exist and was not demonstrated beyond being ‘the butt of a joke’ then we have a problem.

Balding has now made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission under Clause 12.

To repeat what No Rock and Roll Fun said: 'Homophobic name-calling isn't the same as a witty headline.'

So isn't it time the PCC made it clear that using derogatory terms such as 'bender', 'fruit' and 'dyke' does indeed 'legitimise name calling' and simply is not acceptable?

(Hat-tip The Sun - Tabloid Lies)

Sunday Times retracts climate change story

Yesterday, the Sunday Times published the following apology on page two. It is, explains Roy Greenslade, not just a complete retraction but a 'giant climbdown':

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an "unsubstantiated claim" that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as "green campaigners" with "little scientific expertise." The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

The original article can be read here.

More claims of plagiarism against the Mail

The constant media hounding of Jonathan Ross eventually led to him quitting the BBC. Having claimed his scalp, they're now going after his wife for her involvement in the upcoming action film Kick-Ass.

The Sunday Times began this piffle with Jon Ungoed-Thomas' ill-informed article Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman spawns girl assassin, 11. Unsurprisingly, the Mail were quick to join in the attack, with the suspiciously similar Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman causes outrage with film featuring a foul-mouthed 11-year-old assassin, which they placed very prominently on their website.

Two things need to be pointed out immediately.

One: Goldman is only a co-writer of the screenplay. The other co-writer, Matthew Vaughn, is also the film's director - yet he is hardly mentioned in either story.

Two: the film is based on a comic book by Mark Millar. He invented the character of Hit-Girl, the foul-mouthed, eleven-year-old assassin, but the Mail doesn't even bother to mention him.

So references to 'Goldman's film' and her 'spawning' the character aren't exactly accurate.

As for the so-called 'outrage', it's as mythical as you might expect. The New York Times published an article about the film's red band trailers (ones that have swearing and violence in), based on the concerns of one person, who writes her reviews under the title Movie Mom.

Both articles quote Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, but he seems to be making a generic point about about movie violence and doesn't mention Goldman at all.

So a bit of manufactured outrage used to attack another member of the Ross family. What a surprise.

But on reading the Mail's version, the resemblance to the Sunday Times' article is too strong to be coincidental. As the Mail article says Furedi 'told the Sunday Times' his view, it's reasonable to assume the broadsheet article must have existed first.

Sunday Times:

Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:

Mail (with spelling mistake):

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

It doesn't look good, does it?

And this isn't the first time a Mail article has looked suspiciously similar to another story from another paper.

On an earlier post about yet another claim of plagiarism against the Mail, an anonymous comment pointed out these two articles:

Exhibit A - AC Transit bus brawler has video past by Angela Woodall in The Oakland Tribune.

Exhibit B - Bus assault pensioner, 67, starred in second YouTube altercation last August... when he was Tasered by police published on MailOnline.

I emailed Woodall about the claim. She said they had used her work without attribution and confirmed that she had written an email to the Mail about their 'strikingly similar' story, but which they had ignored. She also sent me a copy of her email to them.

Here's a section from Woodall's article:


And from the Mail's version:



And with these articles following on from the claims made against the Mail's Chris Johnson for plagiarism, is anyone going to call the Mail and its editor, to account?

Payouts for man wrongly named in child porn case

In December, the Press Association wrongly identified a man convicted of child porn offences.

While the guilty Martyn Smith had worked at the BBC, he is not the same Martyn Smith as the producer of Dragon's Den - but it was this Smith that the PA named as the one involved.

The PA's error was compounded when one media outlet after another mindlessly repeated the mistake - a clear example of churnalism.

Last Thursday, it was announced that Smith had received £50,000 in damages from PA, £10,000 from the Mirror and £5,000 each from the Telegraph and Times.

Although others - such as the Daily Mail website, Brighton Argus, Huddersfield Daily Examiner, The Scotsman and Belfast Telegraph - repeated the same error, they haven't yet paid anything to Mr Smith.

It's not quite clear why that should be - given the seriousness of the crime, every newspaper who wrongly identified him should be putting their hands in their pocket to pay him the damages he deserves.

Apologies round up

A few weeks ago, The Sun ran a letter from Stephen Nutt, son of Professor David Nutt, after the newspaper had run a pathetic smear story on him simply because of who is dad is.

Although brokered by the Press Complaints Commission, the letter meant that the Sun didn't have to apologise or retract anything. Moreover, they didn't publish Nutt's letter on their website because they never put any letters on their website, despite the fact the original article had appeared online.

The Mail, who pilfered the Sun's article in order to try and smear Prof. Nutt on its own website, has got off even more lightly:

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper removed the article from its website, and made clear it had no intention of republishing the text or the pictures.

In other words, it can pretend as if nothing has happened.

The Sunday Times, by contrast, has been forced to publish a PCC ruling, after the regulator upheld a complaint against it. Printed on page eight of last Sunday's edition, it revealed the disgraceful behaviour of one of its freelance journalists in contacting the sister of recently deceased student:

Shortly after the article was published, the mother complained to the PCC that the piece was inaccurate and insensitive. While this complaint was ongoing, another reporter from the newspaper contacted the complainant's daughter via Facebook and, despite the fact that the daughter made clear that the family did not wish to speak, asked for information about the PCC complaint (including sending her a copy of the article so that the family could highlight what was wrong with it). This upset the complainant's daughter.

The newspaper apologised for this second approach to the family, and explained that the reporter was a freelance and unaware of the PCC complaint. It accepted, however, that the reporter should not have continued to question the complainant's daughter once she had mentioned the complaint. The paper also offered to send a private letter of apology to the family.

The PCC upheld the complaint.

And rightly so.

The mother had also complained about the accuracy of the article, although this was rejected by the PCC. She said that the article was:

salacious and insensitive, and that it had taken information from her son's outdated MySpace page which had been created as a spoof some years previously. She was concerned about the use of web material where the information was irrelevant and ‘cobbled together as a joke'. The resulting inaccurate impression was that her son was a deeply troubled boy under insurmountable pressure.

The newspaper's reply was to say that as the MySpace page was in the public domain it was fair game, no matter when it was written or why:

The MySpace information existed in the public domain, regardless of whether it was contemporaneous, and it was not clear when it was uploaded as it had appeared on undated pages. It was willing to remove these references from the online article as a gesture of goodwill.

The PCC decided this wasn't enough to rule against the paper on accuracy, but wrote a letter to the Sunday Times instead:

The Commission could understand why the complainant felt aggrieved that this type of detail was used so liberally in an article that reported such a recent tragic event. In the circumstances, the Commission asked its Chairman to write to the newspaper, to emphasise its concerns.

Well, that'll teach 'em.

One final point about the original article deserves mention. It carried the headline 'Harry Potter' student found hanged in his Oxford room. This heavily implied that the student in question had starred in one of the Potter films. In fact, he had once sold a first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to pay for his studies. As Stephen Brook wrote in the Guardian:

quite what the news value was in that I cannot see.

The problem with misleading headlines needs to be tackled by the PCC. Although not as serious an error as, say, the Peaches Geldof one, it emphasizes the need for the Editor's Code of Practice to contain a mention of headlines somewhere. Currently, it doesn't.