Media & PR

What does the PCC think of Telegraph’s failure to update stories following ruling?

You might have thought that with all the fuss about the moment over whether the newspaper industry can really be trusted to regulate its own affairs in a meaningful manner, not to mention all the embarrassing issues highlighted by the Leveson Report, that the newspaper industry would at least be being rather careful about its behaviour.

But in fact, the highly controversial practice continues of running a story, being subject to an adverse Press Complaints Commission ruling and then not making this clear in versions of the story still published online.

As I pointed out in my submission to the current review of the Editors’ Code:

Currently, when the Press Complaints Commission upholds a complaint about a story which has appeared online, the online versions are often not updated to reflect the ruling.

For example, the PCC ruled against the Daily Telegraph in May 2011 about a series of stories it had run the previous December (see ruling athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8503891/PCC-adjudication-Liberal-Democrats.html). However, although the ruling has been placed on the Daily Telegraphwebsite, the stories it covers have not all been updated to refer to the ruling (for example, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8217253/Vince-Cable-I-have-declared-war-on-Rupert-Murdoch.html and alsohttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215462/Vince-Cable-I-could-bring-down-the-Government-if-Im-pushed.html).

In other words, someone currently visiting the Telegraph website and finding the stories, could easily read them without being made aware of the subsequent PCC ruling about them. That should not be the case. If a ruling upholds complaints about a story that is still available online, then the online version should make clear it was subject to a complaint that was upheld and include either the full ruling or a link through to it.

Aside from therefore saying in that submission that the Editors’ Code should be changed to be even more explicit on this point, I’ve also asked the PCC for their view on this particular incident. This is what they said to me:

The adjudication received  a lot of publicity at the time and appeared on half of page 4 of the print version and appeared on a stand alone page online with a link from the main news page. This was agreed in advance of publication.

Clearly in this case the adjudication related to the news gathering technique and related to a series of articles. Online prominence is an interesting area and we will continue to look at best practice.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. The Telegraph hasn’t properly and fully updated its website and the PCC carefully steps around the issue. Even in current circumstances.

Perhaps the Editors’ Code review will conclude that this sort of situation really should be left in the past and agree to change the rules the PCC operates. Perhaps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.