Sun in Clause 1 Accuracy PCC complaint

Hardly shocking to hear the words inaccurate and The Sun combined, but this is a good example for what it highlights about the serious deficiences of the PCC, but also (as the press wish to retain power over 'corrections') potentially its successor too.
The Sun admitted to making up a story about Huhne (or at least, that it couldn't produce ANY evidence to backing up the 'story'). It didn't apologise, and its 'correction' ... well, here's Roy Greenslade on that:

In other words, the main page one page story breached the first, and arguably most important, clause of the editors' code of practice, about accuracy.
Happy to set the record straight? You bet. Happy because the commission did not feel it necessary to censure the paper for publishing claims that it obviously could not prove. 
Happy because it published the mealy-mouthed correction seven weeks later at the foot of page 2. Happy because it had got away with a flier. And it didn't even have the grace to apologise.
And note a further irony. The story at the top of page 2 was a piece of "press freedom" propaganda against parliament's royal charter on press regulation, headlined "MPs told: hands off our press".
In the ongoing argument about the provisions of that charter, one of the key points of at issue is over the powers the regulator should have to determine where corrections should be placed. Editors do not want to be ordered where to place corrections. They prefer that they should have due prominence - the current situation.
Does anyone really think this correction on page 2 was adequate compensation for that page 1 splash?

Greenslade goes on to note that other papers had reprinted the 'story' - has Huhne really had a satisfactory outcome from the PCC????


See below for the original article.

How the PCC resolved a complaint about a story The Sun couldn't prove

Page 1 splash, 13 March - a story that The Sun could not substantiate The Sun published the front page shown above on 13 March. Under one of its trademark headlines, the "exclusive" article stated that Lib-Dem MP Chris Huhne had been ridiculed on his first day in Wandsworth jail.

It said a prison officer had called him to breakfast by yelling over the jail's speaker system: "Order! Order!"
According to the article, "the mocking warden" mimicked the commons speaker by saying: "The right honourable member for Wandsworth North — down to the office."
It also said other prisoners laughed at Huhne, that they had bullied him and that he had been transferred to a wing for vulnerable prisoners.
But the story was just that - a story. When Huhne's partner complained about the article to the Press Complaints Commission, the paper was unable to substantiate any of the claims.
The result? The PCC negotiated a resolution of the complaint, which involved The Sun removing the article from its website and publishing the following "correction":

"In an article, 'Order! Order! The Rt Hon Member for Wandsworth. Come to the office' (13 March), we stated that a prison officer ridiculed Chris Huhne by calling him to breakfast on the Tannoy system.
We also reported claims by families of inmates that he had been moved to a wing for vulnerable prisoners after being bullied and badgered for money. We have been contacted by Mr Huhne and his partner Ms Carina Trimingham who say that he was not been moved or bullied and got on well with other prisoners. We are happy to set the record straight."

In other words, the main page one page story breached the first, and arguably most important, clause of the editors' code of practice, about accuracy.
Happy to set the record straight? You bet. Happy because the commission did not feel it necessary to censure the paper for publishing claims that it obviously could not prove.
Page 2 correction, 1 May Happy because it published the mealy-mouthed correction seven weeks later at the foot of page 2. Happy because it had got away with a flier. And it didn't even have the grace to apologise.
And note a further irony. The story at the top of page 2 was a piece of "press freedom" propaganda against parliament's royal charter on press regulation, headlined "MPs told: hands off our press".
In the ongoing argument about the provisions of that charter, one of the key points of at issue is over the powers the regulator should have to determine where corrections should be placed. Editors do not want to be ordered where to place corrections. They prefer that they should have due prominence - the current situation.
Does anyone really think this correction on page 2 was adequate compensation for that page 1 splash?

And the story doesn't end quite there...

Despite being unable to check the authenticity of The Sun's tale, two other daily papers simply lifted it.
The Daily Mirror, which admitted that the source for its article was its rival's article, was therefore obliged to take it down from its website. (It did not carry a correction or apology, however).
And Metro also published the story, arguing that it "clearly presented the claims as being allegations". That's tautology for you. In this case, the complaint was resolved by the PCC because Metro "published a follow-up article reporting the complainant's denial of the claims."