What’s the point of the PCC? Part 2
You'll remember the disgraceful article in the Scottish Sunday Express about the kids from Dunblane who ended up being like most other teenagers - yet somehow were 'shaming' the memory of their murdered classmates by going out and having a drink and talking about sex.
You'll also remember the other day that the Press Complaints Commission decided that Melanie Phillips should be allowed to talk complete crap about gay adoption - specifically, ruling that saying something is "totally untrue" means that you're acknowledging that it's true.
Well now the Pathetically Craven Commission has ruled again, on the subject of the Dunblane article in the Scottish Sunday Express. In a judgement that's particularly stinging even for the PCC, the Express is hauled over the coals. But what punishment has it actually received, other than a pretty stingy smack across the back of the legs? Er, none. Nothing whatsoever. Hooray for an accountable British press!
Septicisle says:
Presumably then the editor should be handing in his notice? Despite the tough words, the PCC has no powers whatsoever to enforce anything other than the publishing of its ruling. The Scottish Sunday Express editor, Derek Lambie, remains in his job this evening, under the main Sunday editor, Martin Townsend.
Well, you'd've thought so, in a fair world, but no. And that's the end of the PCC's involvement. Paul Dacre, big cheese of the PCC (and coincidentally editor of the Daily Mail) said some time ago that the 'humiliation' of a negative PCC judgement was punishment enough for any journalist. Ironic because 'humiliation' is exactly what the PCC said the Scottish Sunday Express handed out to these innocent teenagers.
So yes, let's just let them all carry on as if nothing had happened. Well done, PCC!
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
July 7th, 2009 - 08:38
Don't worry; it's probably one of those quangos the Tories want to get rid of.
After all, who would want to limit Murdoch's power?!
July 7th, 2009 - 08:53
The saddest bit of that ruling? "The complainants said that the coverage had seriously affected their sons…they were just ordinary teenagers"
I bet Paula Murray smirked when she read that.
July 7th, 2009 - 09:23
I guess the best thing for the individual on the street is to elect to not to purchase the rag in question.
Empty bank coffers and bankrupt newspaper publishers carry more influence than angry letters to the editor.
Probably explains why I've not bought a newspaper for nearly half a decade then.
July 24th, 2009 - 19:16
Complainant Name:
Mr Oliver Bonner
Clauses Noted: 1
Publication: Daily Mail
Complaint:
Mr Oliver Bonner of Cambridge complained that an online article had misleadingly merged two photographs of Prince Harry and Caroline Flack in the back seats of separate cars into one image, without informing readers of the modification.
Resolution:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper – which believed that readers would have recognised that the photograph was a composite of the two images – separated the two photographs on the online version of the piece to make the distinction clearer, as it had done in the print version of the article.