Tuesday, 19 June 2018

P4 - IPSO




The IPSO stands for independent press standards organisation. They are a regulatory body that was founded in 2014 and they regulate newspapers and magazines in the UK. Their aim is to uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK. Their job is to deal with complaints from the public who feel that certain magazines or newspapers have not followed specific guidelines within the editor’s code of practice. The IPSO conduct their own investigations when they believe a firm have not followed the code of practice.

The IPSO’s code of practice apply to magazine and newspaper firms and they are rules that must be followed. These rules are:

Accuracy - The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

Privacy - Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

Harassment - Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

Intrusion into grief or shock - In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Reporting Suicide - hen reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while considering the media's right to report legal proceedings.

Children -  Pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities. Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents. Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

Children in sex cases - The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.

Hospitals - Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.

Reporting of Crime -  Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story. Regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clandestine devices and subterfuge - The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

Victims of sexual assault - 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.

Discrimination - The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

Financial journalism - Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others. They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.

Confidential sources - Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Witness payments in criminal trials -  No payment or offer of payment to a witness – or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness – should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.

Payments to criminals - Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a 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.

The Public Interest - The public interest includes, but is not confined to:

-          Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.

-          Protecting public health or safety.

-          Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

-          Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.

-          Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.

-          Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.


One specific complaint I found that breached one of the code of practices was a case against The Mail on Sunday back in the 27th February were complainant Ben Deevoy wrote in regarding an article headlined “The criminals, crackpots and extremists who have poisoned anti-fracking camp protests”. The article described the backgrounds of individuals involved in anti-fracking protests. It said that the complainant, “who has convictions for robbery and battery”, had been jailed the previous year. The complainant said that he had never been arrested, charged or convicted for robbery. He said he could provide evidence from his solicitor indicating that, at his previous trial for obstructing a lawful activity, his past convictions had not included robbery.

Following IPSO’s investigation, and on receiving the complainant’s solicitor’s evidence, the publication removed the reference to robbery from the online article and offered to add a footnote making clear that the complainant’s convictions did not include robbery. It also offered to publish a correction in its Corrections & Clarifications column to the same effect.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=02052-18   

No comments:

Post a Comment