S
spindrift
Guest
Dear Sir
As you may know, the PCC received a large number of complaints about
the Matthew Parris article about which you recently raised concerns.
The Commission has now assessed whether the article in question,
headlined “What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated”, breached the
terms of the Code of Practice (which can be seen on our website at
Press Complaints Commission >> Welcome). While it acknowledged the
deep concerns that many readers had about the piece, the Commission’s
decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full
explanation is enclosed. Please let me know if you would like further
clarification of the reasons for the Commission’s decision.
Although the Commission has come to this view, we will be writing to
the editor of the Times to let him know the scale of complaints we
received about Mr Parris’ column.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been
handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should
write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose
details can be found on our website.
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.
Yours sincerely
Patrick Evenden
Administration Manager
PCC Ruling
Various v The Times
The Commission wished first to acknowledge the strong concerns raised
by many complainants that the article was an incitement to violence
against cyclists. It was clear that Mr Parris’ remarks about
decapitating cyclists – whatever his (presumably humorous) intention
had been – had caused considerable disquiet. Indeed, the Commission
was pleased to note that he had apologised for his comments in his
column of 3 January.
However, suggestions that the article was, as a result of the remarks,
a breach of the criminal law were not matters for the PCC. The
Commission’s task is to examine complaints that are framed within the
terms of the Code of Practice and it could do no more in this
instance.
As such, while noting the anger the article had caused, the question
for the Commission to answer was whether it was in breach of the
Code. It concluded that it was not.
With regard to Clause 1 (Accuracy), a number of complainants had
suggested that the article erred by claiming that cyclists were
responsible for littering hedgerows along country lanes. Complainants
had argued that Mr Parris provided no evidence that litter he had seen
was left by passing cyclists. In dealing with this complaint the
Commission emphasised the provisions of section iii) of Clause 1,
which says that “the press, while free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. On this
occasion, noting that the article was obviously marked as being a
platform for Mr Parris’ own views and experiences, the Commission
considered that the newspaper had sufficiently distinguished
conjecture from fact. It was undoubtedly the columnist’s opinion that
cyclists were responsible for the littering he had encountered; he was
entitled to present his view robustly.
Some complainants had sought to engage Clause 4 (Harassment) of the
Code of Practice. However, the Commission emphasised that this part
of the Code relates to the physical behaviour of journalists and not
to published material. As such, the article could not constitute a
breach of Clause 4.
The third Clause of the Code identified by a number of complaints was
Clause 12 (Discrimination). Here too, however, there could be no
breach. Clause 12 lists a number of things that the press must not
refer to pejoratively when talking about an individual: race, colour,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or
disability. Preferred method of transport is not included in the
list.
Some complainants, as well as referring to specific Clauses of the
Code of Practice, had cited the preamble to the Code in their
submissions. The preamble, which sets the context for the Code, says
that “all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest
professional standards” and explains that the Code must be honoured in
the full spirit as well as to the letter. However, the professional
standards to which the preamble refers are encapsulated in the 16
numbered Clauses which follow. Since the Commission had found the
article not to breach any of those Clauses, it concluded that there
was no breach of the Code of Practice overall. The fact that
complainants had obviously found the piece highly distasteful was not
a matter for the PCC since questions of taste fall outside its remit.
As you may know, the PCC received a large number of complaints about
the Matthew Parris article about which you recently raised concerns.
The Commission has now assessed whether the article in question,
headlined “What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated”, breached the
terms of the Code of Practice (which can be seen on our website at
Press Complaints Commission >> Welcome). While it acknowledged the
deep concerns that many readers had about the piece, the Commission’s
decision was that there was no breach of the Code and a full
explanation is enclosed. Please let me know if you would like further
clarification of the reasons for the Commission’s decision.
Although the Commission has come to this view, we will be writing to
the editor of the Times to let him know the scale of complaints we
received about Mr Parris’ column.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been
handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should
write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose
details can be found on our website.
Thank you for taking this matter up with us.
Yours sincerely
Patrick Evenden
Administration Manager
PCC Ruling
Various v The Times
The Commission wished first to acknowledge the strong concerns raised
by many complainants that the article was an incitement to violence
against cyclists. It was clear that Mr Parris’ remarks about
decapitating cyclists – whatever his (presumably humorous) intention
had been – had caused considerable disquiet. Indeed, the Commission
was pleased to note that he had apologised for his comments in his
column of 3 January.
However, suggestions that the article was, as a result of the remarks,
a breach of the criminal law were not matters for the PCC. The
Commission’s task is to examine complaints that are framed within the
terms of the Code of Practice and it could do no more in this
instance.
As such, while noting the anger the article had caused, the question
for the Commission to answer was whether it was in breach of the
Code. It concluded that it was not.
With regard to Clause 1 (Accuracy), a number of complainants had
suggested that the article erred by claiming that cyclists were
responsible for littering hedgerows along country lanes. Complainants
had argued that Mr Parris provided no evidence that litter he had seen
was left by passing cyclists. In dealing with this complaint the
Commission emphasised the provisions of section iii) of Clause 1,
which says that “the press, while free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. On this
occasion, noting that the article was obviously marked as being a
platform for Mr Parris’ own views and experiences, the Commission
considered that the newspaper had sufficiently distinguished
conjecture from fact. It was undoubtedly the columnist’s opinion that
cyclists were responsible for the littering he had encountered; he was
entitled to present his view robustly.
Some complainants had sought to engage Clause 4 (Harassment) of the
Code of Practice. However, the Commission emphasised that this part
of the Code relates to the physical behaviour of journalists and not
to published material. As such, the article could not constitute a
breach of Clause 4.
The third Clause of the Code identified by a number of complaints was
Clause 12 (Discrimination). Here too, however, there could be no
breach. Clause 12 lists a number of things that the press must not
refer to pejoratively when talking about an individual: race, colour,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or
disability. Preferred method of transport is not included in the
list.
Some complainants, as well as referring to specific Clauses of the
Code of Practice, had cited the preamble to the Code in their
submissions. The preamble, which sets the context for the Code, says
that “all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest
professional standards” and explains that the Code must be honoured in
the full spirit as well as to the letter. However, the professional
standards to which the preamble refers are encapsulated in the 16
numbered Clauses which follow. Since the Commission had found the
article not to breach any of those Clauses, it concluded that there
was no breach of the Code of Practice overall. The fact that
complainants had obviously found the piece highly distasteful was not
a matter for the PCC since questions of taste fall outside its remit.