The Editorial Code of Practice contains 16 clauses:
The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked with a * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
The public interest includes:
- Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour, protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being mislead by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.
- In any case where the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require a full explanation by the editor saying how the public was served.
- In cases involving children, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interests of the child.
- Accuracy
Care should be taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material. Any inaccuracies should be promptly corrected, with an apology whenever appropriate.
- Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given to individuals or organisations when reasonably called for.
- Privacy *
Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private or family life, home, health and correspondence. A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. The use of long lens photography is unacceptable.
- Harassment *
Journalists must neither seek nor obtain information through intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in telephoning, questioning, pursuing or photographing individuals after having being asked to desist.
- Intrusion into grief or shock
Inquiries should be carried out and approaches made with sympathy and discretion.
- Children *
Children are free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. Journalists are not permitted to interview or photograph a child under the age of 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child or any other child in the absence of the consent of parent or guardian.
- Children in sex cases
The press must not identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences. The child must not be identified, the word ‘incest’ must not be used and care must be taken not to identify the relationship between the child and the accused.
- Listening devices *
Material must not be obtained by using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private phone calls.
- Hospitals *
Any press members making inquiries at hospitals should identify themselves to the responsible executive and obtain permission.
- Reporting of crime
The press must not identify relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime without their consent. Regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who are witnesses to, or victims of, crime.
- Misrepresentation *
Information is not to be obtained through misrepresentation or subterfuge and documents should not be removed without the owner’s consent.
- Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification.
- Discrimination
The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person’s race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. The above information should not be published unless they are directly relevant to the story.
- Financial Journalism
Journalists must not use for their own financial profit, information they receive in advance of its general publication, including the buying or selling of shares.
- Confidential sources
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
- Payment for articles *
Payments for stories or information must not be made directly to witnesses or potential witnesses in current criminal proceedings except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest. Journalists must make sure that no financial dealings have influence on the evidence that the witnesses may give.
()
From using the above guidelines, the PCC has dealt with 23,000 complaints over its 10-year lifetime. Here are some of the notorious cases from these 10 years:
2001: Sara Cox v Sunday People
Radio One DJ, Sara Cox complained to the PCC after the Sunday People published nude photographs of her and her new husband on their honeymoon in the Seychelles. Cox’s manager, Melanie Coupland, described the photographs as “one of the worst examples of invasion of privacy I have ever seen.”
The success of previous cases of this kind have depended on whether the complaints were in a public place when they were photographed.
Verdict: The Sunday People acknowledged in an apology that Ms Cox and her husband were “deeply upset” by the photographs, which “should not have been published.”
Ms Cox rejected this apology having felt that the apology did not go far enough to compensate her for the photographs that were published.
2000: Prince of Wales v Sunday Times
Prince Charles objected to a story claiming that he planned to marry Camilla Parker Bowles in Scotland.
Verdict: After an intervention by the PCC, the Sunday Times printed a correction and apology. The paper said, “The story was based on information from a source close to the Church of Scotland. Following assurances from St James’s Palace that there was no foundation to the story, we acknowledge that the story was inaccurate and are happy to set the record straight. We apologise for the error.”
2000: Carol Smillie v Sunday Mail
BBC presenter Carol Smillie claimed that a report in the Sunday Times headlined “TV star Carol’s grief over mum” was intrusive. The article reported the funeral of Ms Smillie’s mother and was accompanied by pictures taken at the crematorium. The pictures were taken using long-lens photography.
Verdict: The complaint was upheld. The PCC deemed it a breach of the code of practice
2000: Prince William v OK! Magazine
Photographs taken of the prince in Chile during his gap year were published, despite the PCC’s ruling after the wake of Princess Diana’s death. The editor argued that the jungles of Chile are a public place and the photos were not taken as a result of persistent pursuit.
Verdict: Complaint was upheld. The PCC deemed that Prince William was not in a place where photographers would normally have been, and therefore must have been followed there by foreign paparazzi.
2000: The PCC v Piers Morgan
Mr Morgan had breached newspaper codes on ethical financial journalism after he bought shares in a company tipped by his City Slickers column.
Verdict: The PCC found he had breached the newspaper code on three counts and was forced to publish a four-page apology. The share dealing is still being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry.
In some cases the PCC will not uphold complaints, say for example, they are in the public’s interest. This would be in such cases as detecting or exposing crimes, during a manhunt for a wanted criminal, protecting the public’s health and safety and preventing information from misleading the public. Although when the public interest is invoked the PCC will need a full explanation of why this was done, by the editor of the newspaper or magazine.
The PCC has also tightened some of their codes in the past because of cases such as that of Princess Diana, banning the use of long-lensed photography on private property, including restaurants and churches.
The case of Sara Cox shows that journalists are still willing to take chances by using such equipment, then simply apologising for printing the stories. They take the chance as such stories are the ones that sell more newspapers and they are willing to pay a fine and apologise rather than not print the offending material in the first place.
