As ever with press regulation, the principles aren't necessarily so clearcut - this is a good thing, right?
Yes and no...
YES: the press has been using this as a means to get round regulation, and their foreign sites blend unique localised content with material from the main site/paper.
NO: isn't it unfair that rival US papers have no such concerns? Also: This is now a clearly globalised market - does a UK regulator make sense?
Digitisation has severely muddied the waters of regulation.
Mail Online refused to defend its story, saying the events had taken place in the US, and the piece was commissioned, written and edited by journalists working in its American operation.
As a result it was designed to comply with US law and journalistic conventions, not UK ones as regulated by Ipso.Ipso rejected this and said the Mail Online article had failed to follow UK rules on inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
“[Mail Online] had not demonstrated the process by which it had regard for the complainant’s previous denials of the allegations,|” said Ipso.
“Nor had it explained why it had failed to include his representative’s position, explained prior to publication, that the allegations which had been put to him were untrue. It had also failed to provide a defence of the accuracy of the article, or its decision not to publish a correction.”
Ipso ordered Mail Online to publish its adjudication on the case in full on its website with a link on its homepage for 24 hours.Scientology leader's complaint over Mail Online's Tom Cruise story upheld.