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

...

TWITTER troll twerp jailed

Jail. Maybe that's what press self-regulation needs as a sanction to work?! Would Jan Moir have written that nasty, virulently homophobic Hate Mail column on the just deceased Stephen Gateley if the press faced sanctions like these tweeting twonks?

Guardian: Teenager jailed for trolling footballer Andy Woodward about abuse.

IPSO A gender setting: group ruling on Sun discrimination

The PCC attracted censure from the Culture Select Committee for their refusal to consider third party complaints, despite this being covered as acceptable within their rules, and being too lenient on the discrimination seen in much of the press. So this early IPSO ruling suggests quite a major improvement on the PCC.


The basic points:

• the complaint was about a S*n column (significant as the notorious Jan Moir column which abused Stephen Gately on the day of his funeral was deemed acceptable as an opinion piece) which mocked a trans woman, Emily Brothers
• the complaint came from a third party (pressure group Trans Media Watch), NOT Brothers (again, something the PCC generally refused to accept) - IPSO will do so if they consider there to be a wider, "substantial public interest"
• The S*n took steps which the PCC would likely have accepted: offered Brothers a column to respond, and issued an apology from Liddle - ironically, it was the apology which was the clincher; Liddle was deemed to have repeated his mockery, using Emily's former male name, and the paper itself had refused to accept that it/Liddle had been transphobic
• IPSO forced The S*n to publish their ruling

BELOW: Greenslade's detailed analysis, and the full published ruling.

Roy Greenslade: The Sun censured by Ipso for Rod Liddle's discriminatory column.

Sun columnist Rod Liddle has been censured by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) for crudely mocking a woman’s gender identity and her disability. 

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!

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