Oct
28
Jan Moir has apologised for offending people over her article speculating about Stephen Gately’s death, as my analysis of previous cases suggested she would. The apology was swift – it was made in her first column since the offending piece – and prominent, the Daily Mail advertised it in the banner beneath the masthead on the frontpage.
The apology itself was only a partial apology. Ms Moir apologised for giving offence, for wrongly giving the impression she was homophobic and causing distress by the timing of the article. She maintained that:
“The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately’s death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on?”
And reiterated her support for same-sex marriages. She also criticised the “hysterical overreaction” and the “orchestrated campaign” against the article.
It was also offered a strange justification. Jan Moir made a public interest defence for her article, despite one not being relevant under the press code of practice:
“Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?”
However, by apologising the Daily Mail and Jan Moir have reduced the likelihood of action by the Press Complaints Commission. The commission is constituted as a “complaints resolution body” and does not have any wider regulatory role.
If the complainant (Stephen Gately’s record company rather than the third parties) is satisfied with the apology, the PCC’s job is done. If the complainant is unsatisfied, the matter can be brought before the full commission and it can rule for or against the article. However, as I wrote previously the precedent in this area is thin and the most likely outcome is that the commission would rule that the newspaper had made a sufficient offer of amends (give the speed and prominence of the apology).
The process may have served Stephen Gately’s representatives well, but not the public. There remains public dissatisfaction with what is being done in “the public interest”. In the words of Niki from London who commented on Jan Moir’s apology:
“To call this ‘apology’ disingenuous would be an epic understatement. I really did not believe my opinion of Jan Moir could sink any lower: I was wrong.
“Jan, do you think we are stupid? Do you think we didn’t read your hateful, bigoted original article? Don’t try to tell us now that it meant something else, that we all ‘got the wrong end of the stick’?
“What is really sleazy, is your continued attempts to wriggle out of taking responsibility for your vile, hateful words. I strongly suggest that, if you really can’t manage a sincere, unconditional apology, you shut up about this subject altogether.
The apology means that there will be no judgement about whether Jan Moir or the Daily Mail has broken the press code. Compliance with that code forms part of her contract of employment. But in the absence of a ruling from the PCC, she is neither exonerated nor held to account for her article.
If the PCC is an “independent self-regulator”, its job is to serve the public. If it is an ombudsman its role is just to deal with a complainant – but that may open calls for a new body to fill the gap. That’s why the PCC’s governance review is so important: it needs to be empowered to do the job of self-regulation, rather than just complaints resolution.
A code of practice is only meaningful if cases are examined, and breaches are logged such that, cumulatively, they have some impact on future newspaper articles. Currently, in the 13 years of cases on its website, the PCC only has a handful of cases which were adjudicated that touch on this part of the code. And the Daily Mail only has three upheld complaints recorded against it.
Without regular assessment, there can be no clear understanding of whether the code is satisfactory. The editors’ code committee (chaired by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre), advises on compliance with the code – and regularly amends it. However, it cannot advise the industry on the issues this case throws up about the tricky balance between free speech and the public interest because it does not consider resolved cases to have breached the code.
In a wider sense, there is no industry-led debate about whether it is acceptable for the Daily Mail – or any other newspaper – to speculate about the death of a public figure, after an autopsy. Or whether it is justifiable – in the public interest – to intrude upon someone’s grief or malign someone’s reputation without any basis of evidence.
So neither the press nor the public are any wiser as to whether the Mail broke the PCC code, or indeed whether the code has any relevance to pieces such as this. All at this at a time when fewer people buy newspapers, and trust in journalism scrapes along the floor of public opinion at a time when some in the industry call for public subsidies.
Related posts:
- The PCC got it right on Jan Moir complaint
- Why Jan Moir and the Daily Mail will escape disciplinary action
- Taxpayers Alliance: a case study of poor journalism
- Paul Dacre must speak out over phone hacking
- PCC adjudication against Scottish News of the World inconsistent and a threat to press freedom