IPSO 2019

Rather than multi-posts, a short sharp summary of recent relevant events, focusing on Clause 12 Discrimination cases; issue of 3rd party complaints; argument in favour of free speech... Here's the Editors' Code.

probably the key one being the Rock/Dwayne Johnson snowflake case!

Do make sure you read http://mediareg.blogspot.com/2018/05/ipso-damages-payments-scheme.html post; this is also a key POSITIVE for IPSO as an improvement over past press regulators.

COURT CASE EXAMINE TIMES 2019 TRANSPHOBIA (CLAUSE 12: DISCRIMINATION)

SUMMARY + FILM LINK: I've summed up this case, linked to Burchill (trans, Observer), Moir/Gately, Iain Dale (sexuality, Mail), Sun/Liddle +  Mail/Letts (racism) cases, bringing up 3rd party complaints; freedom of speech safeguarded for opinion pieces; discrimination must be against named individuals; Twitter-fuelled rows. FILM COMPARISON: there isn't an easy direct comparison, BUT... Paddington 'sexual references' homophobia?; anti-Indie bias censoring working class voices and representations? (anti-racist TisEng message through violence + racist terms + general 18s for 15s)

The Observer (Guardian's Sunday sister paper) case on Julie Burchill's column and of course the notorious Jan Moir column on Stephen Gateley's death are key past examples to consider with this.
The point is simple - The Times editor Witherow was forced in an employment tribunal hearing (a journalist alleged they couldn't work there because of the transphobia) to defend his paper's record on covering trans issues, for example this column by Giles Coren:

Coren’s piece, There came three wise people of non-binary gender, referred to a mother identifying her new baby “as male without consulting it” and referred to someone “who could easily have been a woman or something in between”.

Witherow admitted he would also have rejected one story from a Times Scotland reporter about an apparent row over allowing trans men and women to share single gender cabins on the overnight sleeper from London to Scotland. The piece was based on a tweet and a comment on Mumsnet website. [Guardian]

Where are the press regulator here? Why haven't they dealt with this???

The Times' editor admits both these stories DID contain discriminatory language.

We're only hearing this because of a court case.

VERDICT: IPSO FAIL

LINKED CASES:

2015 IPSO 3RD PARTY RULING V THE SUN [LIDDLE COLUMN, TRANS]

This appeared to show IPSO would be tougher than the PCC, and wouldn't routinely ignore 3rd party complaints, something the Culture Select Committee (MPs) condemned the PCC for, and something IPSO said it would improve on. 

In this case IPSO did accept and rule on 3rd party complaints about a Rod Liddle S*n column in which he mocked a trans woman AND forced it to publish IPSO's ruling.

See post.

2018 QUENTIN LETTS MAIL RACISM TWITTER ROW [IPSO REFUSED 3RD PARTY]
If the above example (Liddle) seemed to show IPSO would be tougher, including by accepting 3rd party complaints, this case seems to show that early promise has quickly faded, and we now see a repeat of a key PCC failing. Whats notable about this case, which would seem to be an example of discrimination (targeted against a named individual ... BUT from a column, not editorial, article), is that it played out as a Twitter row - IPSO rejected 3rd party complaints.

2018 MUSLIM LEADERS SUES TELEGRAPH AFTER IPSO RULING
Mosque leader goes to courts AFTER IPSO ruling. S.Tele paid damages.
Very useful case - the IPSO ruling was 'resolved through mediation'; they didn't rule on whether the Telegraph had breached Clauses 1 + 12 by labelling the mosque leader as an extremist; they DO state that the complainant was satisfied with the IPSO and Telegraph response (Telegraph apologised and printed a correction).
He then sued them under defamation (libel) law, and won a £30k payout.
To be effective, surely IPSO needs a tough fining system like this?
They DO, in theory have a very limited scheme, launched in the same year as this case, 2018, which can lead to compensation payments up to £60k ... but it hasn't been seen in operation yet (just like the UK government have NEVER refused a newspaper sale after the 1960s law was brought in to tackle concentration of ownership).
We should also think beyond the INDIVIDUAL in this case - such articles, regardless of any apology/correction, simply help to reinforce the negative, harmful stereotype of Muslims as terrorists/extremists.

2013 PCC REJECT BURCHILL SCREAMING MIMIS COMPLAINT

This was an extraordinary case, covered in bullets in this post. Burchill used language which might be expected in a right-wing tabloid or mid-market like the Mail, but never a supposedly left-wing, politically correct paper like the Observer (Sunday sister paper of the Guardian): column featured strong derogatory terms for describing transsexuals ("screaming mimis", "bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "dicks in chicks' clothing")

Incredibly, following a protest outside their offices, the paper sacked Burchill ... but the PCC ruled there was no breach of Clause 12!!!

• here's Greenslade on the decision:

Clearly, the PCC decided that Burchill's column, despite her colourful choice of language, could not be deemed to be prejudicial. In other words, she had a right to be offensive. 
Reading between the lines, I imagine the commission took the view that it was a matter of taste and therefore lay within the editor's prerogative.

2015 KATIE HOPKINS SUN RACISM

In its own way just as extraordinary, though reflective of a powerful argument that opinion columns deserve more room for 'colourful' opinion than editorial articles, Hopkins is a widely despised right-wing mouthpiece for hire sacked from multiple jobs for offensive utterances... [MY POST]

The National Union of Journalists has condemned the press regulator’s decision to reject complaints about Katie Hopkins’ Sun column which described migrants as “cockroaches”.Last week, the Independent Press Standards Organisation rejected all complaints that the column, which sparked widespread anger by suggesting that Europe should use gunboats to stop migrants crossing the Mediterranean, was discriminatory on the grounds that it did not refer to a specific individual.The NUJ said that by rejecting the complaints IPSO has “thrown further doubt on its own legitimacy” as the successor to the Press Complaints Commission.Only two complaints out of more than 400 have been referred to the Sun, both under clauses of the editors’ code dealing with accuracy rather than discrimination.

It seems clear there is an incredibly high barrier to getting cases of discrimination agreed by IPSO.

The principle of allowing columnists scope to be outrageous IS at minimum an argument worth considering, BUT in this case IPSO's ruling focused on the notion that because she referred to all immigrants, not any individual, she wasn't discriminating. That logic makes discrimination widely acceptable.

KATIE HOPKINS 2018 MIRROR 'APOLOGY'
This is a bizarre case. The Mirror were found guilty of breaching Clause 1 with its claims of drug-taking by Katie Hopkins. Her victory was pyrrhic (ie, really a defeat) as the Mirror printed its apology and IPSO's ruling ... but noted that they should have stated she was guilty of racism instead!!!

JAN MOIR + IAIN DALE DAILY MAIL CASES

See the doc below; both are from the PCC era. The Gately case especially should be used in ANY essay, its a very powerful argument AGAINST voluntary self-regulation, though again the argument around allowing opinions IS an important one to consider.

VERY briefly, Jan Moir wrote a rather hateful column clearly linking gay boyband singer Gately's death to his homosexuality (ie, the stereotype that all gay men are all promiscuous, take drugs, bound to get AIDS), published on the day of his funeral. It sparked a huge number of complaints, rejected by the PCC on the grounds they were 3rd party complaints (an organised campaign saw 25,000 submitted). They only ruled when Gately's partner complained.

Just as importantly, they didn't even consider it under Clause 12 but rather Clause 1.

They again found the Mail not guilty of breaching Clause 12 for another opinion piece describing a politician as 'overtly gay'.

PCC case studies from DB3igs

...

DAILY MAIL in RACISM row IPSO third party rejection

From Zelo-Street blog

Tad sardonic there, but whether Quentin Letts' direct question (was actor cast because he's black [is it cos he's black to paraphrase Ali G, a no more preposterous voice one could argue]) is racist or not what is also noteworthy is that ...

... Once again there's no mention (yet, at least) of IPSO, this is largely a Twitter-based row.

Guardian: Daily Mail's Quentin Letts accused of 'racist attitude' in theatre review.

----------------------------

QUENTIN LETTS THEATRE RACISM ROW -

IPSO reject third party complaint

Daily Mail columnist accused the RSC of politically correct tokenism for casting a black actor in a Shakespearean role. This quickly led to a Twitter-based argument, and in turn to an IPSO complaint. Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway), IPSO rejected the complaint (of breaching editors’ Code Clause 12: Discrimination) as it did not come from the actor highlighted by Letts.

My surprise comes from IPSO’s apparent resolve to do better than its predecessor the PCC with third party complaints (ie, someone other than the subject of press content complaining), which had been repeatedly and specifically highlighted by the Culture Select Committee as a key failing of the PCC. That issue was also highlighted over the Stephen Gateley/Jan Moir case (also Daily Mail, generally the most-complained about paper).

IPSO won't shine light on Sun Survation story says Greenslade

Very useful piece this, on a story which will rumble on until IPSO publish any deliberations on it  - and very likely beyond if Greenslade is right in anticipating an all-clear ruling.

There are some calls for a wider boycott of The S*n to join the ongoing Merseyside boycott, though initial online noise over that seems to have gone fairly quiet. This story has become iconic of wide dissatisfaction with our press though. The Mail, the most complained about paper of them all with its often vile values earning it the sobriquet of Hate Mail, must be delighted that its red-top right-wing rival has now stolen its thunder with the most complaints yet received by IPSO on any story.

The reason I say this is a very useful piece is because it highlights the real complexities in any attempt to improve our press through regulation, self or statutory.

Was this a nasty story likely to fuel racist attitudes? Basically, yes. Was it an entirely inaccurate reading of the results of a poll? Essentially, no.

Greenslade points out that while the nature of the poll that produced the results was dubious at best, the paper's interpretation of the results could not be dismissed as distorted or inaccurate.

Better judgement could have been used, and the paper was unseemingly grateful for this opportunity to grandstand and launch a populist (certainly amongst its mainly C2DE readership) anti-Muslim, anti-immigration broadside with the fig leaf of respectable data ... but how far should we go to enforce better judgement? How would we formalise that, and how could that possibly avoid being grossly censorial?

This was a nasty article, inaccurate in it's demographic claim but accurate in its interpretation of the data the story was based on. Press regulation, even in what seems the simplest of clauses in the Editors' Code (itself revised just this week), is never simple or straightforward - and no matter how nasty our billionaire tax-dodger owned press gets, let's not forget the closeness of the terms regulation and censorship.

Why the Sun is likely to escape Ipso censure over its jihadi poll.

IPSO Mail corrects Muslim immigrant smear story - damage done?

Its not exactly a shock to see the Mail print an inaccurate, sensationalist story stoking up racial tension and fuelling anti-immigrant sentiment ... but for once the press regulator has stepped in to insist they correct the false, misleading story.

Thats a definite point in IPSO's favour compared to the weak PCC.

BUT ... still the issue remains: is a correction enough? Will it REALLY undo the damage of the original story? Should ALL corrections be prominently featured on the front page to motivate papers to try harder to adhere to the Editor's Code?

Note too that this is another example of IPSO accepting and ruling on a third party complaint, something the PCC routinely refused to do.

Mail on Sunday apologises for 'Muslim gangs' attack immigration van story.

Management consultant Miqdaad Versi complained to the Mail on Sunday, which responded with a letter saying it had “intended no disrespect to the Muslim religion”, but did not correct its story. Versi then took his complaint to Ipso, saying the article was based on conjecture and the religion of the gang was not relevant to the story. 

Following the complaint, the Mail on Sunday agreed to rewrite the story to remove the references to Muslims and carry a correction both in the paper and online. 

The correction said: “An article on July 26 said a gang of Muslim youths was responsible for damaging Home Office immigration enforcement vehicles in Shadwell, east London, in the week the prime minister appealed to Muslims to help combat extremism. Muslim readers have asked to point out that the youths’ religion was unclear and, in any case, irrelevant to the story. We apologise for any offence caused.” 

Versi, who is assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain but brought the complaint in a personal capacity, welcomed the correction. “The coverage of Muslims in mainstream media continues to be very negative and there are too many sensationalist headlines that generalise about Muslims. This story in particular was both inaccurate and referred to Muslims when it was irrelevant to the story,” he told the Guardian.

CLAUSE 12 OF THE EDITOR'S CODE (IPSO WEBSITE)

IPSO NUJ condemn it over Hopkins discrimination ruling

The National Union of Journalists has condemned the press regulator’s decision to reject complaints about Katie Hopkins’ Sun column which described migrants as “cockroaches”.Last week, the Independent Press Standards Organisation rejected all complaints that the column, which sparked widespread anger by suggesting that Europe should use gunboats to stop migrants crossing the Mediterranean, was discriminatory on the grounds that it did not refer to a specific individual.The NUJ said that by rejecting the complaints IPSO has “thrown further doubt on its own legitimacy” as the successor to the Press Complaints Commission.Only two complaints out of more than 400 have been referred to the Sun, both under clauses of the editors’ code dealing with accuracy rather than discrimination.

NUJ condemns regulator's decision on Katie Hopkins 'cockroaches' column (Mark Sweney, Guardian, 2015)

Whilst reluctant to further Hopkins' rather crude career plan - be loudly objectionable, become the subject of media debate, be a known talking head for hire - this is a useful case study from IPSO, one which can very usefully be compared to one of the PCC's most contentious decisions. Despite being the most complained about story in the PCC's history, they found no case to case to answer from Jan Moir's (another ... delightful columnist) piece on Stephen Gately, marking the Boyzone singer's funeral by linking homosexuality with drug-taking, promiscuity and the assumption that he had AIDS!

A reminder of the Gately ruling, one which did little to bolster the public view of the PCC:

The Press Complaints Commission has rejected a complaint from the partner of Stephen Gately, the Boyzone singer who died suddenly in October, over an article by the Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir.The PCC received more than 25,000 complaints, a record number, after Moir wrote about Gately's death, describing events leading up to it as "sleazy" and "less than respectable".The article, published on 16 October, six days after Gately's death, provoked outrage, with many readers expressing their anger on Facebook and Twitter. Gately's record company, Polydor, also complained.In a ruling, the commission said it was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist's remarks" but that censuring Moir, and the paper, would represent "a slide towards censorship". It added: "Argument and debate are working parts of an active society and should not be constrained unnecessarily."The PCC's director, Stephen Abell said the article contained flaws, but the commission had decided: "It would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist's right to offer freely expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention."Gately's civil partner, Andrew Cowles, said he was disgusted by the article and claimed the Daily Mail had broken the PCC's code of conduct on three grounds, arguing that it was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and contained homophobic remarks.The code says that the press must avoid making pejorative references to a person's sexual orientation, but the commission said that Moir did not use any abusive or discriminatory language."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," it said.

Taken from Robinson, 2012 Guardian article.

Clearly there is a VERY high barrier indeed to having any complaints on this clause upheld. As ever with the PCC and now IPSO, it is worth trying to step back and noting the point about freedom of speech; you may agree or disagree with its application here, but it is an important principle.

The NUJ are notable here ... their voice has been near-invisible in the ongoing 'debate' over press regulation.

The earlier Moir case also provides an example of commercial advertiser pressure not working to impact press content:

16 October 2009 The day before Gately's funeral, Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir writes an article that describes events leading up to his death as "sleazy" and "less than respectable". "Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one," she writes. The article provokes outrage on Twitter, with Derren Brown urging fans to complain to the Press Complaints Commission. More than 1,000 complaints are made by 7pm, causing the press watchdog's website to crash for most of the afternoon. In a highly unusual move, the Daily Mail issues a statement from Moir defending her views, while brands such as Marks & Spencer remove ads from the online version of the article.

The quote above is from a Guardian timeline of the controversy. The Mail would not be budged!

Burchill trans column: PCC + 3rd party complaints

Burchill's column attracted 1000s of comments + complaints. Pic source.

NB: The Observer was bought by The Guardian Media Group in 1993, and so is what you'd term its Sunday sister paper.

[Scroll to the bottom for an update, March 26th]

The PCC may have announced it was disbanding itself ... but it continues until such times as a post-Leveson successor body is set up. They've stepped into the row about Julie Burchill's Observer column, now removed from its website (a highly unusual step), which was seen to widely insult transgendered people.

Some key details:

• Dealing with clause 12 (discrimination) + 1 (accuracy); the issue of 3rd party complaints; the right to offend; the difference between columns and editorial: there are some links with the Iain Dale case (2010); Jan Moir's Gately column (2009), AA Gill's column on Clare Balding (2010) etc
• Read all of Roy Greenslade's columns on this here
• Burchill wrote a column for The Observer, sister paper to The Guardian;
• She and it were known for featuring controversial views;
• A January 2013 column set out to attack transsexual 'trolls' of her colleague Suzanne Moore, another columnist;
• the column featured strong derogatory terms for describing transsexuals ("screaming mimis", "bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "dicks in chicks' clothing")
• the paper received 1,000s of complaints; there were over 2,000 comments below the article
• the PCC received 800 complaints
• the topic trended on Twitter
• they don't usual respond to 3rd party complaints but did in this case because of the public interest
• PCC Editors' Code clause 12 states:

12	Discrimination
	i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

• The Guardian, exceptionally, removed the article from their website (Greenslade argues this was wrong)
• A (Lib Dem) government minister (Featherstone) called for both her and the editor to be sacked
• An Independent readers poll saw 90% deem the article offensive
• It attracted a protest outside the Guardian offices:

An internal Observer inquiry, conducted by the readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard, accepted that the column had broken the paper's own code, which states that it "should not casually use words that are likely to offend". He said that it was published due to "a collective failure of editing".
Days later, a peaceful protest about the publication was staged outside the offices of The Observer and The Guardian.
The editors of both papers, along with other journalists (including me), have since been invited by a transgender group, On Road, to meet young trans people in order to understand the problems they face. [source]

• The Observer sacked her
• The PCC rejected the complaint; here's Greenslade on the decision:

Clearly, the PCC decided that Burchill's column, despite her colourful choice of language, could not be deemed to be prejudicial. In other words, she had a right to be offensive.
Reading between the lines, I imagine the commission took the view that it was a matter of taste and therefore lay within the editor's prerogative.

(SOME OF) ROY GREENSLADE'S COLUMNS ON THIS
Here's Roy Greenslade covering the PCC's intercession:

Columnist Julie Burchill attracted 1,000s of online comments

The Press Complaints Commission is to launch an inquiry into the publication of Julie Burchill's controversial column in The Observer that caused outrage among transgender people. The commission decided to act after receiving 800 complaints.
Though the PCC does not generally take up what are called third-party complaints, it has done so on occasions when it feels there is sufficient public interest in doing so.
Similarly, although the commission has been reluctant to investigate stories that involve groups of people in which no individual is identified, it has done so in the past.

Defence of Mail, PCC + Jan Moir

Just noticed this useful article defending the PCC: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/pcc-jan-moir-stephen-gately-brave-ruling