Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission

This is Part Seven of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.

In three different letters to me from PCC officials they each referred, in some way, to me rejecting an offer of an apology. At no stage did I reject such an offer, when, finally the Editor offered an apology he used the exact words that I had suggested, these words were couched in as mild a way as I could think of, they were as given in his second email of 18 October 2007 and were, I quote,"We are sorry for any worry this error may have caused the author". The only part of the offer I rejected was the part that offered to publish The Ice Canyon, part of my comment on that part of the offer was that it was ludicrous, at another stage I might have said it was perverse. Any fair minded person who had all of the facts at their disposal would, I am sure, agree with me.

Such an offer was certainly not "In the spirit of the Code". Some of the PCC's secretariat must have been aware of the facts, I wonder if the Commission Members were when they judged my case?

The following lines are from letters sent to me by the PCC office and administration staff handling my complaint, some of them have been mentioned previously.
A "I must now consider this correspondence closed"
B " I have now examined the file of your complaint. The Commission will not be revisiting it further"
C " ----- I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC ----- "
D "It is not for me to answer questions about the details of your correspondence with the Secretariat"
How does one reconcile these statements with the PCC's aim of Fair?

In one letter a senior PCC official referred to the "protracted correspondence", to the best of my knowledge no mention of the length of the correspondence was made to the Editor. It should be firmly borne in mind that it took the Editor some 54 days to, sort of, acknowledge the inaccuracy, and about 72 days to offer any form of regret, these periods being totally at variance with the time allowed in the Code.

One part of the Code reads "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit". In my opinion the Editor's stance was defensive in his first letter to me and this attitude persisted for 70 odd days until he used the word sorry.
Also in my opinion "in the full spirit" just has to include the moral aspects of a case. The review was sarcastic, and had a certain tenor to it which the inaccuracy fully supported. The Editor sang the praises of the man who wrote the review, quote, "I have no reason to doubt the integrity of his report". This in spite of the major inaccuracy.

Returning again to the "amalgamated" email, I think that displayed lack of the total rigour that should be expected from a body charged with the self regulation of an industry. From the various letters to me about that matter I am forced to accept the feeling that this lack of rigour was condoned by members of the secretariat whose opinion was sought. It is interesting to quote from the Code " ----- sets the benchmark for those ethical standards ----- " I venture to suggest that amalgamating two important emails into one, without notifying the person who had to read it, did not meet any ethical standard.

On page three of the PCC booklet "How to Complain" a paragraph ends with " You will be sent copies of all relevant documents" I did not receive copies of all relevant documents until asking for them after the decision had been made on my complaint. At the time I was trying very hard to become acquainted with anything that pertained to my complaint as I just could not, even remotely, understand how the Commission came to their decision. A clear cut inaccuracy had occurred, the Editor was not required by the PCC to do anything about it and, to the best of my knowledge, has done nothing about it. I would like a proponent of self regulation to explain to me why it should be supported. A paper prints a major inaccuracy, it is pointed out to them, they, without delay, admit the error by post to the complainant and in the next edition a correction is printed. What could be simpler than that? Basically that is what the Code wants.

Regarding the decision I assumed, incorrectly, that Commission Members would sit round a table and discuss my complaint. I found out subsequently that my case was considered by Members individually, presumably mainly by post or telephone. I understand that they are presented with a draft resolution prepared by the office. I had occasion to comment on how the decision was presented to me, for example it was not dated or signed. Later I was informed that the office drafted the wording for the decision. The office also decide if sufficient cause is raised to warrant the case being judged again, it is quite clear that the office wields a lot of power. It should have been enough power for them, the office, to have required the Editor to publish a simple correction in the next edition of his paper. That would have saved, say, ninety percent of the subsequent protracted correspondence, would have followed the Code, would have enhanced the standing of the PCC in my eyes and would have been a perfect example of their often repeated claim regarding the effectiveness of the self regulation of the publishing industry. It would certainly have saved me a great amount of time as well as saving me and my close family a great deal of worry. Would any member of the PCC like to point out, to me, the harm that could have been caused by them requiring the Editor to print a simple correction without delay?
This is the action specified in the Code. I cannot think of any great harm to anyone.

Some suggestions for the PCC to consider.
Agree to be bound by the Freedom of Information Act.
Agree to the appointment of an Ombudsman
Supply all parties to a complaint with copies of all documents, and transcripts of any conversations concerning the complaint.
Require any party connected with the complaint to immediately comply with any provision in the Code pointed out to them, clarified if necessary, by the PCC.
Immediately launch a nation wide enquiry as to what members of the public find offensive, or unworthy of publication in the nation's newspapers and magazines. If there is overwhelming evidence that changes are needed then the PCC, without reference to the people who are paying them, should incorporate these changes, government permitting, into the Code.
If there is not one already take steps to have a legally enforceable "Right of Reply" created.

These suggestions, and possibly others, if implemented, should go a long way towards
giving credence to the PCC's assertions regarding the effectiveness of self regulation. They should also go a long way towards making the UK's publishing industry an example, not only for the world, but also as a step forward in establishing what is, in general terms, acceptable behaviour among our population.

This seven part blog on the PCC is now concluded.

Frederick W Gilling Friday 27 November 2009