Letters | 29 May 2010

Press Complaints complains

Sir: Reluctant though I am to point out inaccuracies in Rod Liddle’s work, I would like to correct some of his suggestions about the Press Complaints Commission (Liddle Britain, 22 May). Mr Liddle claims that Paul Dacre is ‘Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission’s Editorial Code of Practice’. Incorrect. In common with most self-regulatory systems, the newspaper and magazine industry’s code is written by a committee of industry experts following public consultation. The editors’ code of Practice Committee, of which Paul Dacre is Chairman, is entirely separate from the PCC (which independently enforces the Code).

Liddle says that the PCC ‘almost never acts against tabloids’. Untrue. The PCC acts against all publications that subscribe to the system of press regulation and breach the Code. The merest glance at our website reveals many cases of the PCC criticising tabloid editors or requiring them to publish apologies.

Finally, he says that the PCC recently ruled against him for ‘not contravening Article 1 of their code of conduct, but for writing something with which they disagreed’. For the avoidance of doubt, the PCC ruled against him for breaching Clause 1 (Accuracy) of his own industry’s Code of Practice, because he made a factual claim he could not substantiate. The editor accepted this decision (because it was the right one).

Stephen Abell
Director, Press Complaints Commission,
London EC1




A mixed message

Sir: Your leading article of 15 May praised Mr Cameron, ‘whose sound judgment and versatility has been demonstrated in these extraordinary few days’. A little further on it observed that ‘a purely Tory government should have been easily achievable… Mr Cameron’s campaign underestimated the appeal of proper Conservative ambitions… The Big Society message served to confuse and alienate the electorate… The same is, alas, true of the four-month Tory campaign…’. Is this an example of coalition journalism in the editorial office?