The cargo-cult PCC
The PCC is constructed in such a way that it looks like a regulatory body for the press. It's got letterheaded notepaper and a website and everything. It's even called "the Press Complaints Commission", which might lead some people to think it has something to do with responding to complaints about the press.
What people are becoming increasingly aware of, though, in the wake of the Jan Moir story and its record-breaking volume of complaints, is that it's a bit cargo-cult: it looks like a rough approximation of a regulatory body, and it's quite a good job, but it's never going to do what you want it to do. Hoping for the Press Complaints Commission to investigate press complaints? You might as well sit in a bamboo control tower with coconut earphones waiting for a plane to land on your rubble airstrip. It ain't going to happen.
It's worth looking back re-reading the experience of one person who complained to the PCC to try and sort out what they had seen as a gross inaccuracy. You might not be startled to learn that despite their meticulous case and best of intentions, the newspaper concerned - and you won't be bowled over to know its identity - managed to weasel out of it: specifically, by saying that readers would understand the columnist in question - and you won't be amazed to know who it was - was not stating a fact when they wrote "The fact is".
The PCC has announced that it will politely ask the Daily Mail to make a response to the 21,000 complaints over the Jan Moir atrocity. Yes, that's right, regarding the most complained about newspaper article in history, it's going to ask the Mail to have a free hit at defending itself.
Well, that's jolly tough of them, isn't it? As Sunder Katwala says:
The tone of that offer to write to the Daily Mail is rather deferential - in the "is there anything else you would like to say to us today, Mr Dacre" style of the 1950s television interviewer.
And what punishments await if they don't respond? A stamped foot? A kicked doorstop? A mumbled "Well that's not very sporting, is it?" Or even - and this is probably a censure so great that it won't come to pass - a letter written in a slightly harsh tone, saying that it's not entirely right that they've done what they've done.
Sarah Ditum points out that this is progress, of a sort:
One of the problems with the PCC is its institutionalised refusal to look on accuracy as a responsibility held by newspapers to all their readers, rather than a duty they only have towards the people they choose to write about. That means that the PCC has previously been able to ignore any complaints from a third party, and avoid adjudicating on matters (like Moir’s Gately column) when the harm and offence caused spreads much wider than the direct subjects of the piece.
The only thing to hope is that the 'third-party complaints aren't allowed' policy is now jettisoned by the PCC as going completely against the spirit of genuine self-regulation, but I'm not sure even that is certain. All they are saying is that they'll do it on this occasion. They don't even seem to think that it's a bad policy in the first place. What if a person with no relatives dies and has appalling inaccuracies written about them - is there really no justifiable way that readers who may have been offended by such bad journalism should have their complaints dealt with? Why shouldn't general readers be included in the list of people who can complain, as they are with Ofcom?
Now don't imagine for a moment I'm all for huge censorship of the press. But wanting newspapers to be accurate isn't anti-free speech. There's a difference between saying "I may not like what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" and "I may not like what you say, particularly when you tell lies about people who aren't rich enough to seek redress through the courts and ruin their lives, but I know that you're trying your best, so we'll let it slide." And please. Jan Moir is hardly Camille Desmoulins. It's not like writing nasty stuff about recently dead pop stars is some kind of search for democratic freedom - indeed, that's precisely why the piece upset so many from right across the political spectrum; it was the sheer superfluousness of it that made it a hundred times worse.
Accuracy is important. Newspapers' opinions do still carry a lot of weight, sadly enough. And it's perfectly possible for polemicists to get all worked up about all kinds of things without having to resort to getting it wrong, or failing to check their facts. Having to be accurate would make the press better, not less free. This isn't about sacking people when they get it wrong; it's about whether it's right to offend thousands of people not in a life-or-death struggle but in a casually horrible article about a dead person who's not around any more to defend themselves. It's about there being some form of redress and some form of regulation over the press, not just a procedure set up by the press itself which allows the escape hatch of a microscopic correction on page 94.
But still, the PCC creaks along. You can't see the matchsticks and Blu-Tack holding it all together, but you just get the suspicion that something isn't quite right. It still looks like a regulatory body, and it's trying - under intense scrutiny - to behave kind of like a regulatory body might do; but there's no suggestion that the Moir case has brought about any soul-searching or questions about whether they're really doing a good job or not. They'll just keep their heads down and hope they can carry on with business as usual once this business has all died down. They might well be right - unless enough people notice, enough people care, and enough people do something to stop them.
A test for the PCC
This could be an interesting test of the strength of the PCC. Whereas Robert Murat and Kate & Gerry McCann received hefty payments after seeking redress through the courts rather than the Press Complaints Commission, now there's another figure in the whole sorry saga attempting redress, not through legal means but through the Pathetically Craven Commission.
Debbie Butler of the Madeleine Foundation was accused of being 'The McCann's stalker' by the Sunday Express's front page last week
and was labelled a 'sicko' in a Daily Star article about her activities. Now the best way to decide about the Madeleine Foundation is to have a look at the website and judge for yourself. I am not for a moment going to say I agree with everything on there; but on the other hand there are legitimate questions that are posed about the little girl's disappearance, and I think it's fair enough that they should be asked.
Of course the allegations against Butler are nowhere near as serious as those against Kate & Gerry or indeed Robert Murat. But nonetheless it might be interesting to compare and contrast the cases. Specifically, how seriously will the Express take a complaint through the PCC, as opposed to one through notable libel lawyers? Particularly in the light of the fact that even when they got a stern ticking-off from the PCC over the Sunday Express-Dunblane atrocity, they did absolutely nothing about it whatsoever, despite the fact the PCC said they hadn't done enough.
This sentence of the complaint caught my eye:
Debbie's ex-husband asked why they had printed such a bad picture of Debbie in the 'Sunday Express' and why they had apparently chosen the worst one. The answer from the journalist, verbatim, was: "The editor told me he wanted her portrayed as a hard cow".
Ah yes, there's the Fourth Estate in all its glory for us, right there.
Banned for inaccuracy… eh?
Don't worry though, it's nothing to do with our chums at the Pathetically Craven Commission. They're not only unable to ban something for being inaccurate, but probably wouldn't even if they could. Can you imagine? "Sorry, you've used misleading statistics, you're not allowed to do that again, you must remove the article from the web." Can you see that happening to any British newspaper ever, about any story ever?
No, this story revolves around another regulatory body, in many ways as Cargo Cult as the PCC but one which actually has some teeth, sometimes, in certain circumstances. This is about the Advertising Standards Authority's decision to tell the NSPCC to stop using outdated figures in their adverts.
Now, it's not as if the ASA is a shining example of regulatory power. It's not as if they stop adverts from going out in the first place (except in extreme cases) but rather act retrospectively, often when adverts have finished their run anyway, so any punishment not to show them again is entirely pointless. But, this aspect of the decision interested me:
The ASA said that people seeing the ads were likely to consider that the claim was derived from current figures and "represented the prevalence of ongoing sexual abuse at the time the ad appeared".
"We were also concerned that the ad did not clarify the definition of sexual abuse on which the claim was based," said the ASA in its ruling.
What we have, then, is a regulatory body for advertisements that gives more of a shit about accuracy than the regulatory body for newspapers. And yes adverts do need to be monitored for accuracy, as they can often make misleading claims, intentionally or otherwise. But all I wonder is: why isn't there an equivalent for the press? Sure, you can complain about accuracy all you like, but will it get you anywhere?
Oopsy oopsy oopsy
Everyone makes mistakes. But some of us make mistakes more than others. You have to wonder, if someone makes the same kind of mistake again and again, whether it's down to sheer incompetence or not giving a flying one about the consequences. Consequences which in the case of the Pathetically Craven Commission mean a very nasty finger-wagging if you do something like ruining someone's life or completely misrepresenting them; or even a much sterner tut-tutting if you drive someone to suicide or destroy a dead person's memory.
Look at the Scottish Daily Express, which memorably slagged off Dunblane survivors for no reason whatsoever. The PCC said they were very naughty and they should do something about it. They haven't. The PCC has done nothing else, because it can do nothing else. Essentially, you can ignore its decisions entirely, and get away with it.
Ah, how reassuring that the PCC is there to upbraid the press when they get things wrong again, and again, and again, and again...
Over at Mailwatch I recently talked about an amazing transparent headrest which had appeared in a Mail article about Prince Harry and Caroline Flack off the telly. Someone complained that it wasn't accurate. The result?
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.
Do you like the way that the paper gets a sarky little pompous dig at the complainant in as well? Oh surely everyone could tell! What, you mean like with this photo?
Yes, easy enough to just splice two images together to make them one. I mean, it's not as if you ever intend them to be the same image, is it?
I mean, everyone can see that, can't they?
It's so obvious they aren't the same image!
Relatedly, you will recall that the Mail put up an image of a peaceful Muslim protest in Luton to illustrate a rowdy anti-Army protest in Luton. Understandable oopsy, given that the details of the photograph were clearly visible in the electronic caption (see comments)? How did the PCC clamp down on this atrocious misrepresentation?
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper agreed to remove the picture from the online article and to publish online the following correction:
On May 25, 2009, we published an article ‘Nine arrested after masked mob’s march against Muslim extremists turns violent’, in which we inadvertently included an archive photograph of a peaceful unconnected parade held in Luton some weeks earlier. We are happy to clarify that this march had in fact passed without incident and regret our error in wrongly captioning the photograph.
Oh so that's all right then. And how prominent is this article - as prominent as the original one was? No. Of course it isn't. But then that's fine, according to the PCC. The damage can be done as large as you like, so long as the apology is tucked neatly away, then that's the matter 'resolved', isn't it? I love the way the PCC describes things as resolved. Perhaps if you went round their house and did a shit on their front lawn you could 'resolve' the matter by putting an atom-sized apology next to it? I think they'd be fine with that.
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Medway NHS Foundation Trust complained that an article inaccurately reported the treatment of a man who had died at Medway Maritime Hospital. The Trust also complained about an article which alleged that staff had posed for a charity calendar when they should have been working. In fact, the calendar was produced by staff in their own time.RESOLUTION:
The matter was resolved when the newspaper published the following letter from the Trust’s chief executive, Andrew Horne:
Staff at Medway Maritime Hospital who took part in creating a fundraising calendar (Mail) made use of hospital facilities but did so entirely in their own time. The Trust is currently investigating the tragic death of Stewart Fleming in December.
Yes, we may have written utter shit about staff at this workplace but we have allowed you to write in a fucking letter to correct the matter, which we got entirely and completely wrong, so that makes it all right, doesn't it?
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr David Johnson complained on behalf of his son Haydn that a comment piece about the tragic death of his friend, fellow student Rachel Ward, in Val d’Isere contained inaccuracies. Specifically, the complainant made clear that his son had not received an answerphone message from Miss Ward saying that she was lost on the night of her death. In addition, the complainant disagreed with the columnist’s view that his son had failed in his duty of care, had “abandoned” Miss Ward and acted in an unchivalrous manner.RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper made a note of the complainant’s points on its internal records for future reference in addition to removing the article from its website.
But no apology, obviously. Yes, this man has gone through a terrible ordeal and lost someone very close to him, and been wrongly and incorrectly slagged off by some pompous bastard columnist who doesn't give a shit about people's feelings, and his father has quite rightly stood up for his son, but it's all right, because they've removed the article. No apology. No saying sorry for getting it so catastrophically wrong and smearing a bereaved person all over the papers. No. They've removed the article, so it's 'resolved'.
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr James Cole expressed concern that the headline “Scientists discover the brain’s ‘God spot’ and show that faith helps human survival” was inaccurate as it did not reflect the statements made by the scientists concerned. He said the existence of a “God spot” had been denied by those who undertook the research and, contrary to what was stated in the headline, the research had not shown that faith helped human survival.RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper changed the headline of the online article to read “Research into brain’s ‘God spot’ reveals areas of brain involved in religious belief”.
Yes, so the Mail may have entirely misrepresented the work of these scientists, but they can simply change the online headline, and that makes everything all right, doesn't it? I mean it's not as if they've misled loads of readers in the meantime, is it?
Next!
COMPLAINT:
Mr Maurice Greenham, the National AIDS Trust and the Children’s HIV Association complained that an article about foster parents not being informed of the possible HIV status of their foster children contained a number of inaccuracies.
RESOLUTION:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction on the matter:Following comments in an article on 23 February about foster parents not being informed of the possible HIV status of their foster children, we would like to make clear that it is highly unlikely that a child born to an HIV positive mother would develop HIV where appropriate drugs have been administered during delivery. There has never been a recorded case of a family caring for an HIV positive infant being infected. It takes three months – not eighteen – to ascertain the HIV status of a child born to an HIV positive mother.
Oh at last, a correction. Wonder if it was as prominent as the article that misled so many readers in the first place? What do you reckon? I think I have a pretty fair idea.
So there we have it. The Mail gets it wrong again, and again, and again, and again. They're not the only newspaper to do so, but they do pop up in the PCC adjudications time and time again. Sometimes it's not too serious, merely entirely misrepresenting a scientific study for example; sometimes it's really serious and unpleasant, for example making peaceful Muslims out to be rowdy protesters, or smearing the good name of someone who has recently been through a terrible tragedy. The PCC says this is all perfectly fine so long as they make tiny amends afterwards, and then everything's tickety-boo, isn't it? And there you have it. This is the redress available to those who can't hire the top legal lawyers. A tiny correction shoved away in the middle of nowhere, and no apology at all.
Those people at the PCC must be really proud of themselves.
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!
What’s the point of the PCC?
If you haven't already been following it, I recommend you head over to Don't Get Mad, Get Accurate and read the story from start to finish. But for those of you who are up to speed, the decision has finally been revealed - it's perfectly OK for Melanie Phillips to present a complete load of tosh as the truth.
Now I don't mind that. I don't mind that she can say that things which aren't the truth are the truth. But what I do mind is the veneer of accountability the PCC gives to the press, implying that somehow if they get something wrong then you can do something about it. You can't. They're allowed to talk tosh and they know it. At the very most, if you don't have the finances to get on the blower to Schillings or Carter-Ruck, the maximum redress you will get is a letter in the paper - or they might print a clarification the size of an atom. Well whoop de doo.
Melanie Phillips is allowed to say "the fact is" and the PCC considers that it's fairly obvious she's not talking about facts. It also considers that when she says something is 'totally untrue' that she says that something is true:
I've started to reconsider my position on the feasibility of the PCC as a forum for resistance to the inaccuracies of the Mail and print media in general. The moment came when the adjudication reached 'The column had made it clear that there was research which concluded that gay adoption did not affect children negatively'. What the column had said was, in fact, 'Such people routinely claim that research shows there are no adverse outcomes for children from same-sex adoption. These claims are totally untrue.' The PCC took a statement denying the existence of evidence to be 'making it clear' that evidence existed. Reading that rather tortuous re-imagining of the text, it strikes me that the PCC is not so much a body to hold the Press to account as one to justify their actions within the Code. It becomes a way of legitimising press coverage, rather than scrutinising it.
The PCC is a complete cargo cult construction. Sure, it looks like the kind of self-regulatory body that might be able to do something on behalf of punters who are pissed off by something. But it isn't. It really isn't. Now in the case of the Phillips article it's just something that is generally inaccurate and wrong, and which won't be clarified, but which doesn't upset or injure someone else's feelings personally. It upsets people in general because they know she's talking drivel, but it doesn't upset them personally.
But then there are other stories, where the PCC claims to be working on behalf of the general public who can't afford big-shot lawyers, allowing them a form of redress. What then? Can we expect the same form of consideration? And the same form of dismissal of any valid complaint on the grounds that saying something is a 'fact' means it's an opinion and saying something is 'untrue' means you acknowledge it to be true?
What then?
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
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.