Wednesday, May 14, 2008
See decision in comment
PCC: Planning4ACrash (name altered!) vs The Independent
This was a useless exercise except for my ability to use it here to reveal here the folly of our press complaints system. Newspapers are, as we all know, entitled to be partisan, provided that they distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. Nowhere, however, is it necessary to explain the partisan vested interests that may lie behind the story. It is up to the reader to put one and one together. It should however, in my opinion, be the "journalist's" responsibility to explain how their vested interest benefits from the slant taken, because the general public, coming from a different vested interest are, by definition, unlikely to be able to recognise the impact of the partisan view without it being clearly explained.
Posted by planning4acrash @ 12:43 PM (1218 views) Add Comment
17 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. planning4acrash said...
The Article
I couldn't put it in the body, as this is a duplicate article.
The original HPC post
2. planning4acrash said...
The letter I received.
e-mail complaints@pcc.org.uk if you fancy telling them how you feel about it!
Further to my letter of 23rd April the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Code of Practice.
The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision was that there was no breach o the Code and a full explanation is enclosed (see post below). Please let me know if you would like further clarification of the reasons for the Commission's Decision.
Although the Commissioners have come to this view, they have asked me to send a copy of your letter to the editor so that he is aware of your concerns.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission's decision itself - you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet.
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.
3. planning4acrash said...
Reference No. 081685 should be used if you e-mail the complaints@pcc.org.uk, businessdesk@independent.co.uk or letters@independent.co.uk
Conclusion: There was no breach of the Code.
The Commission noted the Complainant's concern that the accuracy of the article had been distorted by the journalist's vested interest as a senior employee of HSBC bank. The article had - the complainant said - dressed up a call for interest rate cuts as a conceptual approach on the day that HSBC's subsidiary company withdrew mortgages from the UK market. In the complainant's view, the journalist should have made clear that his employer's business interests made him biased, to avoid a distortion which unfairly suggested that the economy would benefit from the en of inflation targeting. There was a clear conflict of interest which - the complainant argued - had not been expressed.
On this occasion, the Commission emphasised tha the article was an opinion piece, which would necessarily contain the subjective views of the journalist. This was something specifically permitted by terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy), which state that the press is entitled to be partisan, provided that it distinguishes clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. The fact that the complainant had a specific take on what was clearly a complex matter did not render the article misleading or distorted; readers would be aware that his views would not be universally accepted. In any case, the Commission noted that the current online version of the article detailed that Stephen King was the Managing Director of Economics at HSBC. In these circumstances, the Commission concluded that no breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) had occurred).
(I understand that the original online version did not have Stephen King's job on it?! - evidenced in this blog! - If you were that blogger, or concur with them that this detail was altered in retrospect, can you please e-mail the PCC, I will also)
4. cornishman said...
I'm impressed that it was dealt with so quickly - even if you are not happy with the outcome. I've had a few dealings with other bodies like this and they took months and months to reply.
5. planning4acrash said...
Oops!! I send a link to the wrong HPC thread, Doh!! Here it is
Original HPC Thread
6. planning4acrash said...
Right, another retraction, it was a different article where King's job wasn't cited.
7. planning4acrash said...
At least the decision confirms that the Independent, isn't quite as Independent as the name of the newspaper suggests.
8. paul said...
p4c, did the pcc actually contact The Independent regarding this?
You can find out by submitting a Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access request - ask them to provide all correspondence relating to your case (which will include anything they sent to The Independent).
In addition, if The Independent failed to provide his job title at the end of the article when it was published, then they may have got away with it under PCC rules, but the group should have an internal code of conduct which you could take up with the senior editors for not pointing out the clash of interests. Tell the senior editor that you will post their response here. Crucially, whether Stephen King's job title was included when the article was originally published will be key i should think.
Don't worry about the PCC's initial decision - in 99.95% of cases that is always their initial conclusion, simply to lighten the workload of cases they actually have to do some work for! After all, the PCC seems to have missed your point - everyone agrees that it was an opinion article, but this was not just anyone's opinion - I think you should emphasize clash of interest rather than impartiality (which is what the PCC has mistaken your complaint for).
9. paul said...
You can add that any subsequent revision of the article is ineffectual - the article's authenticity is fait accompli in the view of the reader on the day it was published.
- Ask the PCC is tampering with archive copies of media on which the public have made complaints is acceptable.
- Then point out that this is exactly what has happened.
- Then ask the PCC if, in their opinion, the Independent's revision of the article (by adding in King's job title) is a tacit acknowledgement of any wrongdoing.
- If they refuse to be drawn into any appeal of their decision, tell them that you will ask your MP to request a Parliamentary Ombudsman's investigation into their links with the Independent and whether their own judgement and interpretation has been compromised (the PCC is notorious for being a little too close to the members it is actually meant to be policing).
- Finally tell them that if they refuse to respond to your enquiries, you will publish all of the related information on wikileaks in an attempt to highlight a possible compromise of the PCC's remit.
Grr. That should get them moving.
10. paul said...
OTOH, if the PCC did contact the Independent, (and then the Independent made the revision) then you actually got the result you wanted.
In this case, although officially they did nothing wrong, unofficially they did actually get a slapped wrist.
This in fact, is what i suspect happened, and you might not need to do any of the above. Call them and ask them, and if they refuse to comment or tell you then tell them you will make a DPA subject access request. DPA subject access requests are a pain to action because absolutely everything related to the case you complained about must be submitted to you.
11. paul said...
Sorry for ranting and raving on this, but compromise of remit within organizations (particularly public organizations) that are established to uphold citizens' rights make me seethe.
It is the very worst form of corruption.
12. pelethar said...
I complained to the PCC about the Express' headline a month or so ago "House Prices Still on the Rise", which was based on a Nationwide survey reporting a fifth consecutive monthly decline. They justified "On The Rise" because they were 0.5% higher than a year earlier at that time (or some nonsense like that). I got the same response as p4ac - newspapers entitled to present their opinion, different interpretations a good thing, blah blah blah.
13. icarus said...
I once wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding a horserace tipster advertising in the Racing Post. A friend used the 'service' and said it was rubbish. Apparently customers had to phone the tipster for the tip after a certain time (usually mid-day) and, guess what, the bookmakers were ready for the flood of bets at that time. The morning odds contracted immediately and nobody, except probably the tipster himself, could obtain the odds which had been available before the tip got out. This obviously gave him an insider trading advantage in arbitraging on Betfair, but that wasn't the substance of my complaint. My main complaint was that he not only claimed in his adverts that he had given e.g. a 50/1 winner when the 50/1 was available to nobody (except possibly himself - the horse in question started at 20/1) but that he also claimed that anyone betting with him had made £ tens of thousands over such-and-such a period, and that this was based on the bigger (unavailable) morning odds. The supposed profit was based on several winners at morning odds which were simply unavailable. The tipster had perhaps several hundred or more customers, all of whom were advised to stake £100 or more on the tips. Can you imagine possibly a thousand people each trying to get maybe £200 on a 50/1 shot - no way. Yet the 'profit' he claimed was based on just this.
When I pointed this out the ASA just didn't get it. I got a load of waffle like "we were advised by the Racing Post that those (morning) odds were available at one point etc. etc. and "we are working with the Racing Post in order to" (continued page 94). I decided I had better things to do with my time.
14. Lukeskywalker said...
"House Prices Still on the Rise"
I just received my "did not breach the code" letter from the PCC to explain that the Daily Express can mispresent 5 months (at the time) of declining rises as "still on the rise".
The inaccuracy is obvious to any English speaker because the word "rising" is present participle, but the commission, upon which the editor of the Express sits, clearly do not understand the nuances of our language leaving us all open to subtle manipulation.
15. paul said...
If you actually follow these things through, you will get somewhere - this is why retirees are good at complaining - they have the time to persist. Invariably you find that the initial assessment was wrong, and when you back them far enough into a corner, using their own logic and guidelines, they will likely eventually concede you were right all along.
At that point, they are your bitch because you can start whistleblowing about their underhandedness in dealing with your complaint, and make calls to national newspapers about the corruption you've uncovered. Most papers won't run with it, a few will. That's how the well paid paladins in these places are asked to step down.
I speak from experience, but I'd prefer not to give more specific details about cases I've pursued and won. Needless to say if it makes you angry enough, persist.
16. planning4acrash said...
Paul, the sooner people understand that corporations, and often government, do not work in their interests, the better. The media is not free, nor does it operate in the interests of the people. We live in the age of Corporate Fascism, where corporations print money and debase our currency (and therefore destroy the middle and lower classes, robbing them of savings, work opportunities and pensions) for their needs via corporately owned central banks, which are now free to print money at will without repercussion or question. The Fed is a corporate company that operates for corporations, this is known, it doesn't even produce publically audited accounts! It was alleged here recently that the BOE was clandestinely privatised, again, (it was private before being brought under state control some decades ago). I would go along with that, because it is inconcievable that a democratic bank would print hundreds of billions to prop up international bankers at the expense of causing massive M3 money growth (inflation). The oil and food price now is caused by all that money being printed. But what when the commodity boom ends? Will we see financial collapse or a depression? Remember that the corporations will simply claim all the land, business, etc. that loans are used to purchase. Collapse of the financial system would be the swiftest get rich quick scheme ever devised. Followed by reaction, solution, that would be even more centralised b(w)anking.
The media is owned by the same corporations and operates as the propaganda machine for the corporate state, that hides behind the illusion of governments, all of which are under the same paymasters. Just as the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984, we see statistics constantly revised and rewritten, even financial cycles revised by factors of many years, to give the illusion that Big Brother is always right, even when he is patently wrong.
Once again, we don't need inflation targeting, we need no inflation! We need a 100% gold standard. I read somewhere else that land/asset reform is also necessary to compensate for the theft that has occurred over the ages. Do we really want to have most of the country owned by bloody Prince Charles?! We certainly don't want filthy banks getting their hands on all our houses and corporations.
If you are American, VOTE RON PAUL!
What is the solution over here in Blighty? Us Libertarians have no voice damn it!
17. planning4acrash said...
As Orwell stated, banishing particular words from language is key to propoganda. Newspeak.
Good point about Editors being on the board. Does anybody else have anything on the one's specifically mentioned on the letter I received? Here's my bit, for what its worth:
From their page: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/members.html
"The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry" - Says it all really, about as Independent as Mervyn King of the Bank of England then?!
"Each of the Press Members must be a person experienced at senior editorial level in the press" - It just gets better!!
The Appointments Commission chooses who is in the board, now, this bit is scary: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/appointments.html
- It is a small team of five, which include previous ambassador's to the USA, Germany, Former BOE Deputy Governer. I love this, a previous press secretary to the prime minister!!!!!!! The only one that appears initially to be ok, runs the Edinburgh Fringe.
Chairman: Sir Christopher Meyer (former British Ambassador to the United States) - God Help us!!
Director: Tim Toulmin Toulmin graduates to PCC's top job Apparently Tim has "newspapers in his blood" as the scion of an old regional newspaper publishing family. Impartial then? So, presumably, many in his family are currently publishing articles that he will judge if complained about, great!
Members of the Commission:
- Peter Hill (Daily Express editor VESTED INTEREST!!!!!!!)
- Simon Irwin (Editorial Director of the KMGroup) (Well over a million people read the Group's newspapers and magazines each week and the website, www.Kentonline.co.uk, attracts more than 3,000,000 page impressions a month) VESTED INTEREST!!!!!
- Ian MacGregor (Sunday Telegraph editor VESTED INTEREST!!!!)
- Lindsay Nicholson (editor in chief of Good Housekeeping magazine & Editorial Director of National Magazine Company (That covers all the "lifestyle" (Consumerist) mags then)
- Tina Weaver (Deputy Editor of the Mirror, need I say more?! VESTED INTEREST!!!!)
- Matti Alderson (former long-serving Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority, who brings to the PCC her strong background in consumer affairs. She is currently a member of the Better Regulation Task Force – chairing a report on Higher Education – and has until recently served on the Food Advisory Committee of the (then) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.)
- Spencer Feeney (Editor - South Wales Evening Post)
- Colleen Harris MVO (Prince Charle's former press secretary)
- Vivien Hepworth (Chief Executive, Grayling Political Strategy - A specialist in developing and running communications strategies, Vivien has also worked in the NHS and voluntary sector. Vivien began her career as a journalist, spending 13 years in newspapers, seven on them as a political journalist. (I don't like the sound of the developing and running communications strategies for politics, sounds like Propoganda management to me)
- Ian Nichol (From 1992 to 2001 he was a partner in the business advisory firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers.)
- Rear Admiral Nick Wilkinson CB. Admiral admonishes Times for security breach So, we have an Admiral, who, presumably, is representing the Armed Forces to ensure that we don't find out about everything we should know about how our money is being used for corporate imperialism in the Middle East? What's for sure, is that he is not on the commission for the good of the general public. Aren't there laws about this? Is military vested interest really something for the PCC?!
- Esther Roberton (From 1994 until 1999, Esther was actively involved in the campaign to secure Scotland's Parliament. Most recently she served as a member of the Government's all-party Consultative Steering Group that developed standing orders and procedures for Parliament.) - Nice, she's obviously behind the New Labour Project then. http://www.somis.dundee.ac.uk/court/com/Biography/roberton.htm
- Eve Salamon (A solicitor who has held senior positions at the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission)
- Dianne Thompson CBE (Has headed Britain's National Lottery provider for seven years)
- Derek Tucker, The Right Rev. (editor of The Press and Journal, Aberdeen)
- John Waine KCVO, (A Knight of the Victorian Order, set up by by the Imperial Victorian Powers, is his allegiance to God, or to the establishment?)