Exam date

When's the 2016 exam? Wednesday 8th June, am.

Thursday, 12 June 2014

PCC Ineffective to the end: Mail flouts ruling

Roy Greenslade notes, in typically dry fashion*, that the Daily Mail continues to show just how much (ie, seemingly not a lot!) it respects the PCC. Both it and the Telegraph were found guilty of the same Clause 1 (Accuracy) breach, falsely accusing the BBC of extravagant hotel spending (they actually got a £59 rate, half the standard rate).

*the 'not gone away, you know' is an illustration of both intertextuality and of Stuart Hall's levels of reading theory: it references Gerry Adams' quote from some years back, an elliptical explanation which will still leave some of you mystified no doubt, but not your adult, Northern Irish blog writer!

The two papers responded rather differently to their regulator's ruling:
Once the BBC had informed it of the real price, the paper had updated its online article, and published a footnote explaining its error. It also deleted the reference to £279, which appeared in its original headline: "BBC's Lambing Live criticised after 65-strong film crew stayed at luxury £279-a-night hotel for week".
As for the Mail - always a wolf rather than a sheep - the situation is somewhat different, as you can see from the false headline above, which was screen-grabbed today.
It also said the BBC had informed it of the real cost only after the publication. Once it had, the Mail published a letter from the BBC and told the PCC it had amended its online article, adding the following footnote:
"The BBC asks us to point out that in fact the BBC paid £58 per night, not the £279 quoted. This rate amounted to a discount of around 50% off the standard rate, substantially less than other hotels in the area and within the BBC expenses policy. Having the team stay in one location simplified travel arrangements to and from the farm.
They also say that a crew of 65 is typical for a production of this kind. The article was updated after the BBC provided further comment on the price of rooms following publication."
Fair enough. But if the Mail now knows it was £58 and not £279, why is it still headlining the article as above? I think the PCC should make a call, should it not?
Or perhaps Mr Hesselmann, who obviously agreed to the resolution of his two complaints, might like to make yet another complaint?
Will this be any different under IPSO, which will still be funded by the press, still on a voluntary basis, still with no power other than admonition or publicising poor standards?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments and suggestions are very welcome ... but please ensure all comments are appropriate! All comments are moderated before publication. Spam will be reported