I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Joys of pootling along in the car”, published by the Herald on 11 September 2015. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article. In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complainants.
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of the complaints about the article under the terms of the Code, and has concluded that the complaints received do not raise a possible breach of the Code.
Many complainants said that the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it was inaccurate to suggest that all drivers of high performance sports cars are inconsiderate drivers, and also, that it was inaccurate of the article to state that causing criminal damage to a vehicle was acceptable behaviour. Clause 1 (iii) of the Code states that “the Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. The article in question was clearly presented, in both tone and style, as an opinion piece; it also appeared in the ‘opinion’ section of the newspaper and website. The writer was entitled to be partisan in her views and, as such, the article did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1 (iii).
There were also a number of complainants who said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because that the car that had been keyed was an Aston Martin Vanquish, not an “Aston Martin V8 Vanquish”. While we acknowledge the concerns in relation to the precise name of the car, in the context of the article as a whole, readers would not have been significantly misled by the discrepancies between the actual name of the car, and how it was described in the article. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
A number of complainants said that the article breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), because they had not been able to comment on the article, either on the publication’s website or Facebook page, after publication. Firstly, we should also make you aware that the moderation of the comments section on the publication’s website, or Facebook page, is a matter of editorial discretion. Secondly, the terms of Clause 2 provide the opportunity to respond to published inaccuracies. Since we had not established any inaccuracies in the article, we did not consider that the terms of Clause 2 were engaged in this instance.
Many complainants said that Clause 4 (Harassment) had been breached because the article contained sentiments that would have harassed owners of expensive cars. We should make clear that the terms of Clause 4 generally relate to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process, and are designed to protect individuals from unwanted or repeated approaches by the press. The concerns that the article contained sentiments that would have harassed owners of expensive cars did not engage the terms of the Code, and did not therefore raise a possible breach of Clause 4.
We received a number of complaints that Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) had been breached because the article represented an incitement to cause criminal damage. Firstly, we should make you aware that the terms of Clause 9 relate to the identification of relatives and friends of persons convicted or accused of crime. As the complaints did not relate to the relatives and friends of persons convicted or accused of crime, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged. Secondly, we should make complainants aware that IPSO only considers concerns framed under the Editors’ Code of Practice and cannot offer advice on legal matters, such as incitement to cause crime.
A number of complainants said that Clause 12 (Discrimination) had been breached because the article had discriminated against owners of high performance sports vehicles, as well as people with high social standing. The terms of Clause 12 are designed to protect identified individuals mentioned by the press against discrimination on the basis of their race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability, and do not apply to groups or categories of people. Your concern that the article was discriminatory towards owners of high performance sports vehicles, and people with high social standing, did not fall into one of the categories covered by the terms of the Clause. In addition, your concern that the article was discriminatory towards owners of high performance sports vehicles in general did not relate to an individual. Therefore, these complaints did not raise a possible breach of Clause 12.
Some complainants said that Clause 16 (Payment to criminals) had been breached because the article condoned criminal acts, and that the writer had sought to exploit a crime, and to glorify or glamorise crime. The terms of Clause 16 state that “payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates - who may include family, friends and colleagues”. In this case, there was no suggestion from any complainant that the writer was a convicted or confessed criminal, nor an associate of one, and the terms of Clause 16 were not engaged.
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.
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.
) and came across this article:Surely that is as sweeping a statement as those we resented in the article?j2 lot wrote:I got the same - lots of words no action to follow. My opinion of the Press in general is confirmed. Low life with lower morals.
You think no journo has written anything which has more than hurt someone? Lives have been ruined by zero-moralled hacks.robin wrote:we don't stop the cocks driving their cars, why should we stop the idiots writing? If anything, the cock driving the car is actually going to hurt somebody else.
This.robin wrote:If you want better journalism, buy a better newspaper
I guess the challenge is in defining some rules that on the one hand censor nonsense like the article that is the subject of this post whilst on the other hand allow people to express views that might offend. I don't know what the answer is, if indeed there is one, but I do know that whilst we're all offended by the nonsense published in this article, the truth is likely that no actual harm was done. If some feeble minded soul is taken in by the words in this article and decides to key some high value car, that would be bad. Chances are, though, that the same feeble minded soul will be taken in by all sorts of much worse people and will end up doing things that are much more damaging. Normal people ignore idiots.j2 lot wrote:You're right Robin I am guilty as charged, it is a sweeping generalisation but my loathing of the tabloid press was bolstered by the article written, and the fact that it's acceptable to a press standards agency confirms (to me) the contempt they deserve . I haven't bought a newspaper for maybe 15 years and I don't believe there is such a thing as a better paper.
) - the only real difference is that I am inclined to let them get on with it because there isn't really anything constructive to do instead.At what point did I say that? Lives had certainly been ruined by cocks in sports cars too, so I am not sure what your point is.rossybee wrote:You think no journo has written anything which has more than hurt someone? Lives have been ruined by zero-moralled hacks.robin wrote:we don't stop the cocks driving their cars, why should we stop the idiots writing? If anything, the cock driving the car is actually going to hurt somebody else.
