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

...

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.

OWNERSHIP POLITICS Maggie, Rupert: The Bare Truth

UPDATE: Graham Stewart, author of the volume of the History of the Times (which I've read, and has been used as a prop in an AS film this year!), has hit back at Evans' claims, strongly arguing that Murdoch's was the only credible bid, without which both Times papers might have gone bust (much as he argues in the book).

Not a new story, Leveson was quite withering on Murdoch's apparent inability to remember a meeting of questionable legality with Thatcher that seemed to ensure his Times bid wasn't sent to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There are parallels with the Murdoch meetings with Conservative ministers decades later when his bid to buy up remaining BSkyB was suspiciously waved through, only for Hackgate to torpedo this, and ultimately lead to Leveson, part of his brief being to investigate improper relationships between press and politicians.

The news hook - aside from a left-wing paper seeking to raise a right-wing spectre at election time - is the revised 5th edition of Harold Evans' excellent book on the press, a great read for a wider view of the press, and a useful counterpoint to Curran and Seat on, given Evans was a Tory-supporting Sunday Times editor.

How Thatcher and Murdoch made their secret deal.

Sunifesto Murdoch right-wing vision made explicit

Wee bit careless to present so few ethnic minority faces?

I can't recall seeing quite so detailed, especially from a tabloid, as this before - an all-encompassing manifesto that quite neatly provides the clearest possible evidence of The Sun and thus Murdoch's (as much as he absurdly continues to deny influencing his papers' viewpoints and agenda!) ideological orientation.

The timing is smart - the political parties are yet to publish their manifestoes, and UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems and Tories (the major right-wing/centre-right parties) will all feel some pressure to adhere to some of this classic neo-liberal agenda.

Roy Greenslade has been discussing Murdoch's recent, rather surprising, use of Twitter to make public his previously 'private' (they were clear enough if you read his papers!) views and partisanship:

For Murdoch’s inner circle, such open political expression is a thing of wonder. Before the age of social media, he kept himself firmly in the background, careful not to expose his own public views while actively seeking to sway elections through the editorial endorsements in his many newspapers across the globe.“He made clear to his editors which politicians deserved support and those that didn’t,” said a former News Corporation executive. “But unless it was time for an endorsement, those conversations remained private.”The former executive added: “Now with his Twitter feed, the world can see how he is thinking all the time. Which is unusual for Rupert, who liked to keep his own counsel. It has surprised many of us to see him go so public.”

Its worth reading his article in full. A bit more:

Murdoch watchers see the dual-track emoting of his Twitter feed and the editorial pages of his newspapers as symbiotic. The social media site does not only provide the media magnate a direct channel to vent his opinions – it also acts as a prompt for Murdoch’s editors, they say.
David Folkenflik, who is NPR’s media correspondent and the author of Murdoch’s World: The Last of the Old Media Empires, said that “Twitter has changed the ball-game. Every Murdoch editor around the world will be monitoring that feed very closely – they check it repeatedly – to see whether he’s expressed himself again.”
As the power of newspapers has waned amid the fragmentation of digital discourse, the relationship between Murdoch and his newspapers has arguably turned upside-down. Before the proliferation of other news sites, he used his newspapers to amplify his personal political views; today, with the News Corp empire bigger than ever, he uses his personal Twitter feed to amplify the influence of his newspapers.
As the former News Corp executive put it: “As newspaper endorsements become less and less important, this is one way for him to maintain a high political profile.”
That trend remains visible in the UK, where Murdoch pushed the power of newspaper endorsements to the limit with the Sun’s famous 1992 front page on the day after the Conservative party’s general election victory: “It’s the Sun Wot Won It”. Today, the Sun has to work that much harder to have the same impact – this week it launched the endorsement process for the UK’s May general election, 100 days before the event. It dubbed the paper’s campaign the “Sunifesto” and flagged it as “100 days to save Britain”.

THE SUNIFESTO: ANALYSIS

As to that 'Sunifesto', there are a few especially interesting points to consider:

Times/Murdoch + (non-)Freedom of Press

When Murdoch took over The Times newspaper in 1981 he was forced to guarantee editorial freedom from proprietorial interference (ie, from him). Independent directors were added to the board, and its written into the company's constitution that, for example, an editor can neither be appointed nor fired without their agreement. I'm about half way through the 1,000+ page official history of The Times (the volume covering the 80s; there are 5 or 6 more equally long books covering the earlier history!) in which the takeover features extensively - it has in any case been heavily featured in every book written about the press since the 1980s, as Murdoch's ability to control the editorial line of 'his' papers is seen as the exemplar of owner interference.
This came to mind from reading Roy Greenslade's column (Jan 2013), in which he urges the current independent directors to resign en masse as The Times editor has just resigned, stating Murdoch made it clear he wanted someone else in, but the board weren't consulted. This is a great, contemporary, example that helps evidence the argument that proprietors (owners) do have editorial influence over their papers.
Full article copied in below.

Times independent directors are not independent and should resign

When James Harding "resigned" as editor of The Times a month ago he told the paper's journalists:

"It has been made clear to me that News Corporation would like to appoint a new editor of the Times. I have, therefore, agreed to stand down."

His decision evidently surprised Rupert Murdoch. And it certainly shocked the independent national directors (INDs) of Times Newspapers Holdings. One of them was so upset he told friends he was planning to resign.
Given their remit, as set out in their witness statement to the Leveson inquiry in October 2011, I believe all should have resigned en masse. But there's no dishonour in doing it now.

Prescott says Twitter stronger than PCC

The post title doesn't quite sum up former Labour deputy-PM John Prescott's argument, which is a very, very useful one as it

• brings up issues around digitisation ...
• and the decline of newspaper circulation (there are 10m UK Twitter accounts, while 9m papers are sold each day)
• the failures of the PCC, and how Twitter users are more effective than it: he compares his experience of complaining about a Photoshopped image used to brand him as a 'champagne socialist' (he was drinking a bottle of beer which was cropped out of the shot) - it took weeks to get an apology - with a June 2011 story in The Sunday Times about him criticising new Labour leader Miliband: he tweeted that this was simply a made-up lie, and within HOURS The Sunday Times issued an apology
• the failure of the press to carry out its democratic function as a 'fourth estate'
• ...not least over the refusal of the press to report the Guardian's revelations about phone hacking until after the Milly Dowler revelations led to the closure of the NoTW - he says it was the incessant discussion of this on Twitter that ensured the Guardian's reporting eventually had an impact
• he also notes the role of advertisers: it was after a growing number of big-name companies announced they would cease advertising in the NoTW that it was closed
• fundamentally, he argues that Twitter enables the people to carry out the scrutinising role, holding politicians to account, that the press/media are traditonally meant to

Here's what he said on http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/15/life-is-tweet-john-prescott:

Life is tweet, says John Prescott, as Twitter reaches 10m milestone in UK

Twitter has helped shift the balance of media power from press barons to the people – a true champagne moment

• 
• • John Prescott
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 May 2012
  • Comments (97)

John Prescott says the 10,000,000th UK Twitter subscriber is a milestone and a true champagne moment. Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters

Tuesday marked a turning point for the UK mainstream media. The combined total of people who buy daily national newspapers is 9,002,963. The number of people on Twitter in the UK is now 10 million.
Where once press barons were courted by politicians and PRs, the people have now established their own media. It costs nothing, is faster than mainstream media and galvanises people into action.
Back in 1996, I went to a do with Pauline. A photographer took a picture of us at our table. The following day the London Evening Standard ran a picture with the caption "champagne socialist".
There was no bottle of champagne at our table – the paper had cropped the picture to make a bottle of Becks look like a bottle of Moët. Another beer near my hand was airbrushed out completely.
I complained but, after a few days, I'd heard nothing. So I released a statement which was published in the Independent and, eventually after weeks, I received an apology from the Standard.
In June 2011, the Sunday Times wrongly reported I had told "friends" that my party's new leader had not made "a good start" to his leadership. The headline read "Labour Big Beasts Maul Ed Miliband".
I tweeted: "I see there's a quote purporting to be from me in the Sunday Times. It's completely made up. An absolute lie."
Within an hour, the paper replied "Due to a prod[uction] error a quote was wrongly attributed to @johnprescott. We apologise for the confusion & are happy to set the record straight."
Both stories illustrate how power in the media has shifted dramatically. Twitter has created an important and speedy check on our newspapers – a role the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) failed miserably to fulfil – and finally made press barons accountable to the people.
Even Rupert Murdoch, who vented his spleen in Sun editorials, realised the power shift and cut out the middleman by finally joining Twitter in January.

The Jan Moir Twitter storm about her terrible Daily Mail piece on Stephen Gately's "sleazy" death led to thousands of tweeters, myself included, posting the link to officially complain to the PCC. A record 25,000 did and Moir was forced to apologise.

Twitter users also bombarded News of the World's advertisers after accusations it had hacked Milly Dowler's phone. O2, Boots, Halifax, Dixons, Sainsbury's, the Co-op, npower and Ford all withdrew their advertising and the paper was closed within a week.

Social media also helped set up the Leveson inquiry. While very few media outlets covered the Guardian's original phone-hacking investigations in 2009 in any detail, it was kept alive on Twitter as new information emerged.

They wouldn't let it lie and the mainstream media were ultimately compelled to investigate the story, leading to a critical mass of public anger and official action.

Twitter is OUR media, the public have become the news editors and the Twitter trend list is the running order.

It's given me a voice and a connection to millions of people that the distorted prism of the mainstream media denied.
So for me, life is tweet. Though it would be even tweeter if they verified me.
LOL!
• John Prescott is the former deputy prime minister. He joined Twitter on 22 January 2009 and presently has almost 132,000 followers.