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 Expresses itself orders front page correction

A significant ruling in a number of ways:
The Express has been ORDERED (sanctions for recusal remain untested, a grey area at this point) to print a FRONT PAGE correction

That's a huge change from the PCC and GCP/PC before it, when papers managed to bury corrections inside

It isn't a one off or first either - they've already ordered The Times to do the same back in April
Papers really don't like this as it deeply undermines their brand and threatens reader trust; unlike buried apologies it is seriously embarrassing

This came about from a third party complaint, something the Culture Select Committee had attacked the PCC on (they generally ignored their own rules and almost always refused to consider such complaints)

The Editors Code breach is on Clause One: Accuracy, something the red-tops are guilty of on an almost absurd level of frequency. No real sign that this culture of falsity to fit ideology is being tackled, but still an improvement on the PCC's record?

The ruling was against the Express; phone-hacking and their woeful response (condemning The Guardian for reporting on it!!!) was the death knell of the PCC, but it was Desmond's withdrawal of his Northern and Shell titles from its remit that had already torpedoed its credibility as a regulator.
Let's not forget that several papers remain outside the new regulatory system (FT, Guardian, Indie/i), having refused to sign up to IPSO.

HUGE story nonetheless.

Express makes front-page correction for claiming English is dying out in schools 

IPSO has made further progress too: Ipso delighted by publishers' revelations of their annual statements.

And there's more! Whilst Greenslade wryly but rightly flags up the small, misleading nature of it, The S*n was also forced to issue a front page trail to a longer apology inside, though it's owner will no doubt be content enough that the damage has been to his ideological opposite, Jeremy Corbyn.

2015 General Election: Media Policy

Rather than post a stack of posts reacting to policy announcements and eventual manifesto pledges, I'll gather links and points in this post.

Key (probable) issues:

• Future of BBC, funding, downsizing?; form of BBC regulation (scrap Trust?)
• Wider future of PSB requirements
• Future/role of OfCom
• Watershed in digital era
• Extending ratings system to music video and other media content
• Press regulation, Leveson response, IPSO
• Privacy laws, protection of journalists' right to privacy
• Film industry state funding
• Pluralism, (concentration of) ownership, cross-media ownership limits

UPDATE, 21ST APRIL: GUARDIAN GUIDE TO MEDIA POLICY PLEDGES
I've been saving a variety of links, but the Media Guardian has come to my rescue on this one!
Here's their helpfully pithy overview (written by Jasper Jackson):

Plans for the media industry may not be seen as a big vote winner this election, but the manifestos published over the past few days suggest that each party has a very different take on the industry.

IPSO needs to look into Mirror...

THE ISSUE:

No punches pulled by Greenslade here; he's vituperative in his condemnation of IPSO's process in investigating a possible 'fishing' case that snared a Tory MP, sending nude photos to a fake female Twitter account. Greenslade is indignant that IPSO, which took up the case without a complaint (quite a change from the PCC, condemned by the Culture Select Committee for its general refusal to consider 3rd party cases), didn't interview the journalist involved, instead accepting that the (Sunday) Mirror would pass on whatever was pertinent.

SUMMARY/KEY FACTS:

The Mirror published a story several other papers, including The Sun, had turned down.

It 'exposed' a Tory Minister, Brooks Newham, for sending nude photos of himself to a journalist who posed as a young woman. He resigned once the story came out.

The journalist used nude pics of real women who had not given their permission to help entice the Minister.

Select Committee role: the 2011 Murdoch hearing

As well as the formal media regulators we have to consider the role of Parliament in overseeing media regulation. Governments can set up one-off investigations at times of scandal over media (usually press) behaviour, as happened with the 1970 Younger Committee, 1989 Calcutt Committee, and the Leveson Inquiry (July 2011, reported November 2012, with a 2nd part to come following the end of criminal trials). The 1985 Peacock Committee was set up with the aim of getting support for privatising the BBC or at least applying free market principles to the TV sector rather than any scandal.

When issues are seen as too sensitive for one party/government to deal with, the major parties can agree to set up a Royal Commission, as has happened three times on the press.

Its easy to overlook the important role of backbench MPs here.

Through the Culture, Media, Sport Select Committee they can investigate any area of the media, and have been holding regular hearings into press standards, privacy and libel, with some particularly famous hearings including appearances by the Murdochs. You can watch the entire July 2011 hearing at which Rupert Murdoch, having declared this was the "most humble day in my life", was attacked with a shaving foam pie and rescued by his much younger wife (who would divorce him in 2014). James Murdoch also took considerable umbrage at Labour MP Tom Watson's description of News Corp as a "mafia-like organisation".

Some useful links:
Wiki: DCMS
2010 guide to junior Culture ministers
Wiki: Culture Secretary
Shadow Culture Secretary (2013: Harriet Harman)
Mail report on the July 2011 hearing
NY Times on the same

PCC and OfCom to be reviewed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/09/jeremy-hunt-ken-clarke-privacy-committee
Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke set out remit for privacy committee

MPs and peers given broad remit to recommend legal changes or guidance to judges, as well as look at role of Twitter

• • Share 
  • 
  • 

• Dan Sabbagh
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 June 2011 12.45 BST
• Article history

The Commons privacy committee was set up at the height of the furore over Ryan Giggs's alleged affair. Photograph: Michael Regan/Getty Images

The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, have asked parliament to examine whether the law and the courts have established an appropriate balance between the rights to privacy and freedom of expression in the wake of the celebrity injunction crisis.
The two ministers have agreed on terms of reference for the committee of MPs and peers – and want parliament to see how "issues relating to determining the balance between privacy and freedom of expression" could "best be decided".
That gives the committee a broad remit to make recommendations as to whether the law could be altered or whether new guidance could be given to judges to change the way they have been interpreting the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
David Cameron asked that the parliamentary committee be set up last month, at the height of the Ryan Giggs furore – in which the footballer tried and ultimately failed to prevent himself being publicly linked to Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother contestant with whom he allegedly had an extra-marital relationship.
Parliament will also examine the role of Twitter – which was used widely to circulate Giggs's name in defiance of court orders – and whether it is appropriate for MPs to use parliamentary privilege to name individuals such as the Manchester United footballer to help get their names into the public domain.
The Press Complaints Commission will also come under scrutiny, as regards its role in "privacy matters", to see whether it has been at all effective in this area. Baroness Buscombe, who chairs the PCC, has claimed it would have stopped the Sun from publishing the original Giggs story without the need to go to law.
The exact membership of the committee is currently being hammered out by the whips' offices of the three main parties – and the body is expected to begin its inquiry later this month. Those expecting to become members have indicated they expect to call a wide range of witnesses including Paul Dacre and other newspaper editors, executives from Twitter and Google, as well as senior judges.

The full terms of reference

To consider the operation of the current law in relation to privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and superinjunctions and to advise the government on any improvements that should be made.
In particular, to consider:
• How the current law, both statutory and common, has operated in practice.
• How issues relating to determining the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, including particularly determining whether there is a public interest in material concerning peoples private and family life, could best be decided.
• Issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and superinjunctions, including in relation to publication on the internet, parliamentary privilege and the rule of law.
• The role of the press and issues relating to press complaints and self-regulation in the context of privacy matters, including the role of the Press Complaints Commission and Ofcom.

Hate Mail - some satirical vids on Daily Mail

The paper that published the Jan Moir column on Gateley, not to mention the example we've studied of the schoolgirl whose thighs they helpfully featured in close-up, is nicknamed the 'Hate Mail' by some (generally left-leaning or liberal folk) for its editorial stance (views) on race, sexuality, gender etc. An extremely influential paper, the current and previous government pay close attention to what it says and strive to avoid receiving flak from it - a rather ridiculous stance for the supposedly left-wing Labour government, but more understandable from a right-wing Tory administration.
The following are just a few of the satirical vids you can find on YouTube on this paper, which once delighted in supporting the Nazis and the UK equivalent, Mosley's brownshirts. Whether you agree with the views it expresses or not, they are worth being aware of as an example of the narrow ideological range of our national press, but also for the paper's reputation as the "voice of middle England". As with any satirical text, boundaries are pushed; please be aware before choosing to watch these that some of the material is 'edgy'.

See also the blog http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

It may be worth considering whether such vids at least attempt to perform a scrutinising duty that the PCC fails to...



This one pushes it as far as it goes, adding new subtitles to a drama about Hitler's final days; I won't embed it but you can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIRbcIVKeXk&feature=related
Less contentiously, Bill Oddie delivers a swipe at the Mail, also a target for Irish nationalists.
Here we have a BBC show responding to a characteristic Mail attack on the BBC; their points on why the Mail, Murdoch press etc routinely attack the BBC (at the end of the sketch) are useful:

This is a rather safer option: footage from the Select Committee exploring the issue of privacy, with DMail editor Paul Dacre on the spot:

The level of taste here is questionable, but ultimately the comedian Russell Howard simply utilises actual stories from the Mail, providing one example of how it can create moral panics:

Remember the outcry over the Ross/Brand show? Here's how Russell Brand responded to the Mail's coverage (it features shots of historical pro-Nazi Mail articles):

Perhaps sharpest of all is this sketch from a BBc3 show:


One final point on this; the Mail is something of an easy target, but is an outstanding success in commercial and cultural terms - the owners may not be as powerful as Murdoch but the Mail has become a paper that politicians pay close attention to. It shares many traits with The S*n, and is emblematic of the largely right-wing nature of our national press. Remember though what Curran and Seaton were trying to flag up: for long periods Britain was dominated by a 'radical press' (generally left-wing), with the various steps which are conventionally proclaimed as having achieved press freedom actually, in their eyes, consciously creating the near-exclusive right-wing press we see today.

Select Committee Report on PCC

You can find it at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/36209.htm
It is largely critical of the PCC, BUT cautious about suggesting staturory recommendation. It focusses on ways the PCC can operate better, not least by ceasing to trot out the 'third party' excuse to refuse to rule on often clearcut violations of the Code.