IPSO children rulings + web + advertisers more powerful

Pending updates, check back for more

Some links from another post:

What is the Editors' Code? Save a full copy for yourself. What does it have to say about children? What does it have to say about ownership? Advertising?Do you think this is a sufficient basis for press regulation?
Have a look at rulings - any useful cases on children?
Now have a look for Guardian reports on IPSO and children - anything to add?

BELOW: I searched the IPSO database for clause 6 rulings; 4 of the 6 most recent (on 23.5.17) complaints were against what has consistently been the most complained against newspaper (the lack of change in this clearly suggests a failing system) - the Daily Mail (and its online wing).













It can be argued that whenever anyone goes to the courts instead of the regulator this indicates a failure of press regulation. That is often true; the case of the Toploader guitarist using solicitors to get the Daily Express to agree to cease publishing photos of his child, under the guise of reporting on a celebrity couple's break up, was a clear demonstration of the failure of the PCC. Its response was invariably slow, with any resolution or judgement passed down months after publication - no use to a parent seeking to prevent further invasion of his child's right to privacy, as enshrined in clause 6 of the Editor's Code. The press, especially the red-top/tabloid press, have a long history of such breaches:



If you want to see evidence of the Mail continuing on its proud record of most complained about paper, see this detailed analysis from the TabloidCorrections website (once more, an example of more effective or at least accurate oversight than the formal regulator is an online source?) - which includes this table exposing just how few complaints IPSO actually rules on, an absolutely crucial point in judging them. If you wanted to know which paper was most guilty of Editors Code breaches, IPSO data would actually be misleading - most of their cases are just listed as 'resolved' by 'mediation', and IPSO don't make any judgement!




In the Toploader case, Richard Desmond, the porn baron who infamously asked for an explanation of the term 'ethics' at the Leveson Inquiry, withdrew the Star and Express titles from the PCC. As a voluntary self-regulator, there was no sanction or punishment for this; his papers, frequently found guilty of Editors Code breaches, had simply ceased to be regulated even under the dreadfully weak PCC system. The parents in this case had no regulator to turn to.

What about IPSO then? They have further toughened their children's clauses (6 + 7) in the Editors Code; they have also included a reference to 'quickly' resolving complaints in this revised code (recognising a key PCC failure). They're also tougher than the PCC, having forced the Times, Mail and Sun to run front page corrections. They can also point to a case where they ruled in favour of parents complaining against the Express about publishing images of their children. However, the parents were the royals Duke + Duchess of Cambridge, the same Duke who once held a party to thank the PCC for keeping the press away while he went to uni, a dubious privilege given to someone funded by the public and in line to become head of state. Even in this case the sanction was, well, pathetic: the Express had to link the adjudication (ruling) for 24 hours on its website. That'll teach them?!

Consider then the first case IPSO handled, the 'devil child' complaint by an MP, Sarah Wollaston. This fell between the end of the PCC and launch of IPSO. As The Sun eventually apologised for paying for the story, its misleading nature, and harming the child (a 4 year-old), IPSO considered the matter resolved. This has become a key theme, shared with its predecessor: if the complainant says they've been satisfied with a paper's response, IPSO don't actually make a judgement; look up their searchable database and it would be hard to know if press standards are being breached as they simply say 'resolved', offering no judgement on whether the Editors Code has been breached. Here's how pressure group Hacked Off saw this, from their 2015 review of IPSO:


You can see another mark of continuity with the PCC: The Sun got away with this. Their 'apology' was 4 sentences. On page 2 - some contrast to the front page splash and double page feature inside. There is no record of them having broken the Editors Code as IPSO don't make a ruling if 'a resolution' is reached - and lets not overlook that this complaint (from a third party, so there IS some improvement from the PCC!!!) was one of many; why ignore the rest? Were they also satisfied? (IPSO only contacted ONE complainant, the MP). They've not been fined, not been warned, not even really had to apologise - 3 sentences boasting of their fine standards before that vague apology! Why would they not do the same again? The Sun's Editors Code breaches should surely be judged recorded: they'd swiftly build up a huge record of clause 1 breaches for a start. Their record should be plastered over their front page each time they add to it with further breaches. They could be fined. Without such sanctions why should they be bothered about IPSO rulings - or, indeed, the lack of an actual ruling?!

IPSO Editors Code changes hailed and condemned

It won't help ease suspicions when Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre leads the back-slapping over the announcement of changes to the Editor's Code, to begin on January 1st 2016.

Hacked Off attacked the announcement, claiming not only that the changes ignored some of Leveson's specific proposals but also that there 8 ways in which the Code was actually watered down.

The two additions concern coverage of suicides and gender discrimination (I wonder if that will eventually require updating to specifically include transgender discrimination, on which the Press have an abysmal record?).

It is significant too that headlines are now included in the most-abused clause, Clause One on accuracy. The Code's preamble also specifies that complaints need to be addressed swiftly through IPSO. The press remains split on regulation, with several papers still refusing to sign up to IPSO (or rivals), but the body it funds, PressBOf, is making a concerted push here to shore up the image and acceptance of IPSO as the sole legitimate press regulator.

A continuing Conservative governemnt will have no appetite to upset a largely supportive press; a future Corbyn-led Labour government presumably would ... but if the mainly right-wing press get their way and their incessant anti-Corbyn flak (also noticeable in the supposedly left-wing Guardian) sees him replaced by a Blairite right-winger their path, remarkably, looks clear once more.

The Press just keep supping in that last chance saloon...

Editors' code revised to prevent gender bias and wayward headlines.

LEVESON IPSO PR war as Hacked Off fail to Impress industry

A good summary by Greenslade of the binary opposite views of Hacked Off and (most of) the press on the Leveson Report: a righteous attack on and firm legal proposals to improve the press vs an anti-democratic attack on a free press.

Hacked Off support Impress, a rival to IPSO that is seeking to win a royal charter - which would effectively put the entire press under a new legal regime, even though Impress has only signed up a farcically small number of hyper-local titles.

Without any possibility of a truce, let alone a settlement, the two sides spend a lot of time hurling verbal missiles at each other. 

The latest volley is the release of an “independent report” called Leveson’s Illiberal Legacy, produced by a press freedom group known as 89Up, published by the Free Speech Network and sponsored by three publishers: DMG Media, News UK and the Telegraph Media group. 

According to an article in the Daily Mail, the report makes “a devastating attack” on the Leveson inquiry, which “became a tool for a determined group of lobbyists [Hacked Off] to use regulation to erode press freedom.”  

The report states that laws rushed through in the wake of Leveson “pose the most substantial threat to British press freedom in the modern era”. It also poses an “imminent danger” to local newspapers. 

It calls on the government to annul the royal charter and to repeal sections of the crime and courts act.

Publishers and opponents treat the Leveson report like holy scripture.

IPSO initial review, June 2015

IPSO was launched on September 8th, 2014, following lengthy disagreement amongst the (then) three major parties on how to implement the Leveson Inquiry's Report on Press Standards. Here's how the Wiki describes it - note the scepticism ('claims'):

IPSO claims to be an independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry, and exists to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editor's Code of Practice been breached. The Editors' Code deals with issues such as accuracy, invasion of privacy, intrusion into grief or shock and harassment. IPSO is able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.IPSO handles complaints, and conducts its own investigations into editorial standards and compliance. It also undertakes monitoring work, including by requiring publications to submit annual compliance reports. IPSO has the power, where necessary, to require the publication of prominent corrections and critical adjudications, and may ultimately fine publications in cases where failings are particularly serious and systemic.

KEY BASIC POINTS:

IPSO Public opinion backs tougher regulation - YouGov poll

The numbers are open to interpretation it must be said. The Guardian uncritically reflects the reading of Hacked Off (who commissioned the poll) - remember, 'source strategy' is one key way to assess a paper - but there is scope to read the numbers as showing only lukewarm support, and quite a split.

More than half of people think Ed Miliband is treated negatively by press.

The poll findings suggest very limited public confidence in IPSO. If Labour forms the next government after the upcoming election, its very likely that the whole issue of press regulation will be re-visited. If its another Tory-led government, this is much less likely.

EXCERPT:

Ownership, Accuracy and Press Power

TASK: In the 5:10 it takes this video to play, make brief notes on examples of a Chomskian concept that this video illustrates and the song lyrics specifically mention...

This is a case where the terminology essentially is the EAA, or at least a starting point for it. Use one of the following to find relevant EXamples (the egs I give use the Daily Mail and Ed Miliband; you don't have to use these):

1. You could try searches such as '2015 daily mail miliband' (the 2015 gets recent results: eg), 'daily mail miliband press regulation' etc (what specifically did the Mail do to try to discredit 'Red Ed' Miliband when he was pushing for a tough press regulator?);
2. You could gamble on a quick browse of the Daily Mail, the most likely source...
3. You could try the appropriate MediaReg blog tag

Please don't click on 'read more' until asked to

Press unites against Labour-LibDem Leveson proposals

David Cameron has been the subject of much hostile coverage from a right-wing press apparently unhappy with the PM for not being right-wing enough. Today he is represented as an heroic figure, a true titan, single-handledly safeguarding British democracy from the terrors of state regulation of the press, whilst Miliband/Clegg (Labour/Lib Dems) are castigated as opportunistic anti-democratic hooligans with no sense of British history or traditions, taken in by the brazen buffoons of Hacked Off.

Which is one way to paraphrase today's extraordinary coverage of the ongoing parliamentary splits over how to implement Leveson's recommendations.
Roy Greenslade, as ever, provides a sharp summary of all this - you can see here a good example of what Chomsky's propoganda model referred to as "flak" (one of the five filters keeping radical or counter-hegemonic content out of mainstream discourse).
Political columnist Michael White also weighs in with a discussion of whether the PM is effectively in league with the Murdochs, fearing their wrath.

Cameron, the editors' press freedom hero, versus 'draconian' Miliband

Michael White

Friday 15 March 2013

The majority of nationals lauded the prime minister for his opposition to statutory underpinning for a new press regulator

The Daily Mirror’s headline on Friday.

Prime minister David Cameron might have enjoyed his national newspaper coverage this morning. It was predictable that his opposition to statutory underpinning for a new press regulator would be greeted by headlines in his favour.

Ken Clarke's pro-statutory reg arguments

We're not far away now from Lord Leveson's initial findings, but no matter what the outcomes of the Leveson Inquiry you need to be able to outline and critically discuss arguments for and against each form of regulation (statutory, quango, mixed [BBC], industry self-regulation, wider laws, laissez faire non/de-regulation [Desmond/Northern Shell]). Former Justic Sec Ken Clarke's arguments, presented to the Inquiry, are very useful as an example of well-reasoned pro statutory regulation arguments. It seems likely his Conservative government colleagues will oppose any such change, as this clashes with their free market ideology (and political opponents accuse them of being too close to Murdoch still), with PM Cameron and Michael Gove making prominent speeches on this line.

I've copied in below the full article, which has stats from a YouGov poll for Hacked Off which outlines the extremely high level of public distrust of the media and support for statutory regulation (as with any poll its worth asking how well informed the public are in making such judgements), and outlines Clarke's main points and proposals for a much beefed-up PCC-successor with powers to fine and force apologies on any page they wish.

Ken Clarke tells Leveson he supports statutory press regulation

Clarke's remarks come as poll shows overwhelming public support for greater controls despite other ministers' opposition

• Patrick Wintour, political editor
• The Guardian, Wednesday 17 October 2012 18.38 BST

Ken Clarke backs a fully independent body capable of imposing fines in a letter to Lord Leveson. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio, has written to Lord Leveson saying he is not opposed to a form of statutory regulation for the press, pointing out that a similar statutory underpinning of the judiciary has not undermined its independence.
Clarke also dismissed those who claim that regulation would amount to Armageddon and backed a fully independent body capable of imposing fines.
His intervention follows sharp warnings by other ministers, including Francis Maude and Michael Gove, opposing any intervention to inhibit press freedom in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.
Clarke's remarks come as a poll showed overwhelming support for greater controls over the media and widespread distrust over the closeness of politicians to those in the media.

Hacked off campaign

Original logo

Lest you're unaware, Hacked Off is a useful source: a campaign group formed in response to the inadequate response of the Met Police (the subject of multiple inquiries and increasingly likely to lead to court cases), with Hugh Grant now their most prominent spokesperson.
Look closely at their logo, which reflects their distrust of the actual purposes of Leveson...

Here's how the Media Standards Trust describes them:

Can you spot the difference now...

Hacked Off was founded to campaign for a public inquiry into illegal information-gathering by the press and into related matters including the conduct of the police, politicians and mobile phone companies. Only a full public inquiry, we argued, could put the truth of the hacking scandal before the public and ensure that necessary lessons were learned. The Milly Dowler revelations on 4 July convinced the public and the political world of the need for such an inquiry, and the campaign is now focused on monitoring the Leveson Inquiry and pushign [sic] for press reform.

 Their own website: http://hackinginquiry.org/

btw, you add [sic] where a source contains a spelling error, denoting its not YOUR error

Sky email hacking: Public Interest Defence

The following is an example of how you can combine Use of Examples (a case study of this instance of hacking), EAA + Use of Terminology (in analysing the pros/cons of the concept of 'public interest defence', and citing specific law which may overrule this: the Computer Misuse Act). Below you'll find differing lines from Sky, Guardian, Indie, Hacked Off and Reuters, plus a linked Roy Greenslade article on the wider concept.

Huge story breaking 1st week of April 2012: Sky has admitted to using email hacking for at least two stories it ran ... but claims there is a public interest defence. Sky trumpeted about 'obtaining' emails from the faked-death John Darwin in 2008; his wife pocketed a fortune from life insurance and they went to Panama to live it up (then rather foolishly posed for pictures with an estate agent).
Here's how The Guardian broke the story. An excerpt:

Making only a minimal effort to hide the basis of the story, Tubb's report said Sky News had "discovered an email" from John to Anne dated 31 May 2007, in which he says changes to visa regulations meant he could no longer stay in Panama, where he was hiding on a tourist visa. The report cited evidence from several emails between the couple, including a "final email" from Anne that was not, "as suggested in court", evidence of a "massive row" between them, an email that Tubb said had been "handed to the police by Sky News".
The story displayed a picture of "John and Anne Darwin's masterplan", showing a detailed diagram that had apparently been produced by Darwin, and claimed to have obtained detailed financial accounts prepared by Darwin. In another story, published in November 2009, Tubb quoted directly from an email written by John Darwin to his wife in 2007, explaining that their property in Panama had been valued at $1m and adding: "You're a filthy rich gringo". But a link to copies of the couple's emails is now dead.
The broadcaster also published a voicemail message on its website, dated 19 May 2007, in which Anne Darwin is clearly heard leaving a message for her husband. The voicemail, part of an interactive graphic, ends with her saying "I'll try and catch you tomorrow. Love you," which the broadcaster said showed "she was doing as much of the running as he was".
Sky News said this was not obtained by phone hacking and a spokesman said: "All of the material obtained by Sky News was via the Darwins' computer-based email accounts. As we have said previously, Cleveland Police were made aware of the source of the material when Sky News shared it with them. We stand by our editorial decisions, which were justified in the public interest."

Sky News responded today by accusing the paper of double standards; here's an excerpt:

Some of the most important stories have involved breaking the rules in some way. For example, the Daily Telegraph's exposé of the MPs' expenses scandal was very clearly in the public interest, but only happened because the newspaper took the decision to pay for stolen data. They have been widely applauded - deservedly - for doing so.

Indeed, if it was looking for further examples, the Guardian could have found them much closer to home. Its respected investigative reporter David Leigh has admitted hacking a phone in pursuit of a story. The Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, was found on more than 100 occasions to have commissioned information from a notorious private investigator, who was convicted in 2006 of illegally obtaining private data. In each case, a public interest justification has been claimed.

The story has lead headlines for days now. The Indie was one of several to flag up a key point of law which potentially undermines Sky's line that there was a public interest defence:

Although no one has been arrested for the computer hacking, there is no public interest defence in the Computer Misuse Act. The development follows the revelation that The Times, another part of the Murdoch news operation, was found to have hacked into the emails of the blogger Nightjack, who the paper outed as the serving police officer Richard Horton.

 The Hacked Off campaign group rejected Sky's defence:

“Hacked Off today renews its calls for a public interest defence in law after Sky News confessed to hacking into emails, claiming it did so ‘in the public interest’.
“Yet because there is no public interest defence in law for the Computer Misuse Act, Sky has to rely on the discretion of the prosecution services not to prosecute.
“This is unsatisfactory. If Sky News believes there is a clear public interest to hack into emails then it should have a clear and consistent legal defence for its actions.
“Journalists would feel confident to speak openly about the methods they use to discover stories in the public interest if they knew there was a proper defence for their actions in law.
“Hacked Off hopes that the Leveson Inquiry will recommend the introduction of a formal public interest defence in law for the protection of journalism.”

If you want an ostensibly neutral (I don't think such a thing exists) news source, here's how news agency Reuters reported the story.

Final word from me on this: NewsCorp has been guilty of flagrant abuse, and intrusions into the privacy of 1000s, but don't dismiss Sky's line of argument just because the source is arguably tainted; consider the merits of the argument, not just the source. Read more on the public interest defence in this book extract from the Roy Greenslade column.