The Press Complaints Commission versus the Daily Telegraph

I had meant to blog about this when the PCC announced the ruling, but I was recovering from the election.

I am very pleased that the PCC have ruled against the Daily Telegraph, for two reasons.

The Daily Telegraph articles quoted a number of private comments made by senior Liberal Democrat MPs in their constituency surgeries which had been secretly recorded by the newspaper's journalists posing as constituents.

The MPs featured included the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, in addition to Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Ed Davey, Minister for Work and Pensions, Steve Webb, Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, Under Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker, Under Secretary of State to the Department for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell, Parliamentary Secretary (Deputy Leader) to the Office of the Leader of the Commons, David Heath and Health Minister, Paul Burstow.

A pity the PCC spelt Andrew Stunell's name incorrectly.

I have worked directly for one of these, worked closely with four and worked with the other three.  In fact one was at my wedding earlier this year.

I therefore reserve the right to be biased against the Daily Telegraph.
I have read the ruling, a number of times and the most interesting paragraph is this one;

The newspaper denied that it had undertaken a ‘fishing expedition'; rather, it had acted upon specific information it had received from parliamentarians and members of the public. In private meetings at the Conservative party conference in 2010, the editor had been informed by Conservative ministers including a Cabinet minister (themselves informed by local party activists) that the public and private views of some Liberal Democrat ministers were increasingly at odds, particularly on the issue of Coalition policies which had been backed publicly. Similar concerns had also been expressed separately to senior reporters and the issue was raised with several MPs in the course of various engagements. A consistent theme began to emerge of growing Liberal Democrat private dissatisfaction. The newspaper said that the Conservative ministers were understandably reluctant to go on the record, or provide information or contacts in Liberal Democrat constituencies to back up their concerns.

The specific line within the paragraph above that caught my eye was this one;

In private meetings at the Conservative party conference in 2010, the editor had been informed by Conservative ministers including a Cabinet minister (themselves informed by local party activists) that the public and private views of some Liberal Democrat ministers were increasingly at odds, particularly on the issue of Coalition policies which had been backed publicly.

Wow, the editor must have been really shocked?

Come on DT, when Labour were in power they had Ministers and MPs expressing views against their own Government - did the Daily Telegraph think it was appropriate to go and pretend to be constituents and secretly film or record them?

No, because in other news the Pope is Catholic and bears crap in woods.

So, what is different?

The difference is that the media are not used to coalition government - unlike the Scottish media - and therefore don't know how to deal with it.  The only way they have come up with so far is to to attack, and find things to attack, sometimes like this story, on things that don't interest the public and breaking the rules to get the story.

Interestingly the ruling also states;

The newspaper had said that it had acted on information from various sources, who had been unwilling to go on the record.

I assume that includes the Conservative Ministers and Cabinet Minister?  Strange that.

Is it because they are jealous they didn't get more senior roles within the Government because Cameron went into coalition rather than going it alone in a minority government?

The second reason I am pleased that the ruling went against the Daily Telegraph was because knowing how hard MPs work and how important their constituency surgeries are, it is utterly appalling that the journalists wasted time pretending to be constituents.
 
This, as well as being sneaky and dishonest has deprived a real constituent with real problems from seeing their MP and potentially getting help.
 
When I worked for Vince Cable, he held his weekly advice surgery every Friday from 5pm to 7pm.  Joan and I often would be still in the office with Vince until 8pm, sometimes even later working through the people and trying to help.
 
I have to be honest, it is a bloody good job I didn't work for Vince when the sneaky journalists met him, because I would have been furious.  We put a lot of effort into helping constituents, so depriving a real person of time with their MP to explain a real life problem is nothing short of pathetic.
 
The Daily Telegraph were out of order on this occasion, they didn't generate news, and they have gone down in my estimation.  You can read the ruling here.

PCC rejects complaint over Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death

Back in October last year following the tragic and very sudden death of Stephen Gately, Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir stuck the knife in and kicked out making some wild and unjustified accusations.

I, among many of my friends, colleagues and many others blogged about this at the time, you can read the posting here.

At the time, emotions were running high and Jan Moir said;

"In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones."

This was her understanding of how the Social Media arena responded.  What this showed in fact was not an orchestrated campaign but in fact a heavy out pouring of grief for Stephen, Boyzone, his partner Andrew and Stephen's family but also a group united against a fairly solitary voice attacking Stephen Gately and making some wild accusations.

Jan Moir misread the public mood.

Following her article, 25,000 people including Andrew Cowles and Polydor complained to the Press Complaints Commission, a number never seen before complaining about one article or even a TV show, such was the anger of people out there.

Well, now the PCC has published it's findings - here.
I have read the adjudication and the Commission's ruling in full under each of the three relevant parts of the Code - Clause 1 (Accuracy); Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock); and Clause 12 (Discrimination) this you can find here.
 
I think the PCC had a difficult role here, but could have proved their worth and showed they even had some teeth, but they failed.  Instead they have backed a journalist columnist who made homophobic comments at an insensitive time and made allegations, proved to be untrue, about Stephen's death.
 
I will be honest, I think the adjudication is a load of tosh, I just found my self shouting at my laptop, (it's okay, it didn't talk back).
 
Take their ruling on Clause 12.

Clause 12 makes clear that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's sexual orientation. The question of whether the article was homophobic or discriminatory to gay people in general did not fall under the remit of the Code.

That paragraph to me is completely bonkers, so the PCC doesn't rule on homophobic statements, is that what they are actually saying?

While many complainants considered that there was an underlying tone of negativity towards Mr Gately and the complainant on account of the fact that they were gay, it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article. The columnist had not used pejorative synonyms for the word "homosexual" at any point.

The Commission made clear that this part of the Code was not designed to prevent discussion of certain lifestyles or broad issues relating to race, religion or sexuality. There was a distinction between critical innuendo - which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society - and discriminatory description of individuals, and the Code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former.

The Commission may have been uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist's remarks on the topic; it did not consider, however, that the column had crossed the line on this occasion such as to raise a breach of the Code

So, Jan Moir and the Daily Mail walk free to make any comments they like, mostly because, apparently it was obviously the view of the columnist not the newspaper.

To me, the PCC got this ruling wrong - as Jan Moir got her article wrong and the timing even more wrong.

A sad day today.