Independent Press Standards Organisation suck – what a shock.

This artical was written The Sun’s Front Page Smear Story On ‘Hypocrite’ Jeremy Corbyn Revealed As False

Firstly the IPSO want me todo their job…

In order for us to assess your concerns, we do therefore need you to specify the Clause(s) of the Code under which you wish to complain and explain how you believe the Code has been breached. Please use the following link to find the Editors’ Code of Practice: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html

I’m not a lawyer or even familiar with the Editors Code – asking me to apply that code to the Sun artical is a going to result in the code being applied wrong or misinterpreted. A clear intimidation to try and get me to drop my complaint.

However https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html

Clause 1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

They have now asked

I understand that you have provided a link to an article about The Sun’s front page, but in order to take forward a complaint about it we will need you to specify all the alleged inaccuracies which you would like us to consider.

However if you read the Huffington Post artical this first paragraph explains whats wrong

The Sun’s Tuesday front page has been rubbished by experts and even its own source, after it tried to smear new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn by branding the republican a “hypocrite” for kissing the Queen’s hand to secure more than £6m of taxpayer funds.

The Huffington Post artical says…

But a constitutional expert, Parliamentary research briefings and the paper’s own singular source all piled in to rebuke the Corbyn story, revealing that the taxpayers’ funds doled out to political parties are not in fact reliant on leaders gracing Queen Elizabeth II’s hand with a kiss.

so the Sun artical was a lie? Editors code 1.1 The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

Richard Gordon QC, a ‘Silk’ for over ten years, distanced himself from the piece on Tuesday, telling The Huffington Post UK that his quote used to justify the paper accusing Corbyn of grappling for funds had nothing to do with Short money.
Despite two pages of the newspaper being propped up on supposition credited to the expert lawyer, Gordon said of the Sun journalist he spoke to the day before: “I didn’t give a view of Short money.”

So they have use Mr Gordon as a “source” and Mr Gordon denies talking about the subject.
And we now have an example of why me doing the job of IPSO is pointless, I can only asume misrepresenting a souce is a breach of the code, but as I’m unfamiliar  with the code I can’t be sure. 

Published by

Daniel McMorrow

40 Year old disabled geek,

%d bloggers like this: