When the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have now completed an assessment of the complaints we have received. Given that we have received in excess of 6,000 complaints, we have prepared this response which draws together and responds to all of the main concerns raised with us.
By way of background it is helpful to explain that IPSO is able to consider complaints from: (a) an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; (b) a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest and (c) from third parties (those not personally and directly affected) in relation to concerns about accuracy matters. However before deciding to accept complaints from third-party complaints about accuracy, we need to consider the position of the party most closely involved.
A large number of the complaints we received expressed concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. In general terms these complainants were concerned that the claims made about Ms Rayner had been fabricated and were therefore inaccurate. However, we noted that complainants were not complaining to us on Ms Rayner’s behalf.
In order to make a decision on whether the Code was breached in relation to these complaints, IPSO would need to investigate and make findings about things which Ms Rayner is claimed to have said and done. We do not believe such an investigation would be possible without her involvement because we will not be able to meaningfully assess or test any substantiation that the publication might put forward in defence of its reporting. Because of this, we declined to consider complaints made about the articles under this Code clause. For clarity, this does not affect the ability of Ms Rayner to make a complaint on this point. For more information about third party complaints made under Clause 1 and how we deal with them, this
blog may be of interest.
Complainants also said that the articles breached other clauses of the Code. These included: Clause 2 (Privacy) because the article intruded into Ms Rayner’s private life and could lead to stalking or harassment, Clause 3 (Harassment) because the article harassed Ms Rayner, and Clause 12 (Discrimination) because the article discriminated against Ms Rayner both as a woman and as someone who attended a comprehensive school. Again, in this case, the person directly affected by the alleged breaches of Clauses 2, 3, and 12 was Ms Rayner. As complainants were not complaining on her behalf as an authorised representative, we were not able to consider this aspect of their complaints further.
Complainants raised further points, which we have assessed and responded to below:
Some complainants considered the article to be in breach of Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because it constituted sexual harassment of Ms Rayner. However, Clause 9 relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As complaints did not relate to this, we did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 9.
Many complainants raised concerns (framed under various Code Clauses) that the article was offensive and distasteful. We noted that the article reported on remarks made by an anonymous MP where they expressed their opinion about why Ms Rayner was “crossing and uncrossing her legs”. We should note that the Editors’ Code of Practice makes clear the press has the right to publish individuals’ views, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. We should also make clear that the Editors’ Code does not address issues of taste or offence. Newspapers and magazines are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. We recognised that many complainants found the content of the article to be offensive or tasteless; however, this did not in itself mean that the article was in breach of the Code by reporting them.
Some complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it had been changed online. Newspapers are allowed to amend articles, and given that complainants had not raised inaccuracies within the second version of the article, we did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1.
Complainants also suggested the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because the article did not name the anonymous MP whose opinion was reported. In fact, Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code refers to confidential sources and states that “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information”. Therefore, the article did not have to disclose the name of the source, nor was it inaccurate to omit it. Additionally, Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters. As complaints did not relate to this, we did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 10.
Complainants also said the article was in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it was misogynistic and classist in a more general way. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. Complainants’ concerns that the article discriminated against women in general, or was classist, did not relate to an individual. We did not therefore identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 12. For more information about the application of Clause 12,
this blog may be of interest.
Some complaints also suggested the article was in breach of Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) because it mocked victims of sexual assault. Clause 11 states that the press must not identify or publish material likely to lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. As complaints did not relate to this, we did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 11.
For the reasons set out above we will not be taking forward the complaints we received about this article. However, as noted above, this email draws together and responds to concerns brought to us by over 6,000 complainants. If, having reviewed this email, you believe that there is a significant point of complaint to which we have not responded or if there is further information that you think we need to consider, please let us know within seven days of this email so that we can consider what further review of our decision might be appropriate.
Additionally, even when IPSO does not take forward a complaint, we closely monitor these issues and use the information we gather to identify areas of potential concern to provide targeted interventions to raise press standards. Our team is closely monitoring developments in this area.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
www.urban75.net
