Here is the Press Complaints Commission's stock official response to complaints about the Daily Mail's infamous gay swastika cartoon in January;"The Commission received over one hundred complaints about the cartoon. Virtually all the complainants considered that the portrayal of the couple in the cartoon discriminated against homosexual people. Many complainants also considered that the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) on the grounds that it was inaccurate to depict a gay man with a swastika tattoo. The vast majority of complainants found the article to be highly offensive...
"In regard to the concern that it was inaccurate to depict a gay man displaying a swastika tattoo, the Commission emphasised that the cartoon was depicting figurative characters and not specific individuals...
"Virtually all of the complainants considered that the portrayal of the couple in the cartoon, and especially the depiction of a swastika, was in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code. The terms of this clause state that the press must avoid making a prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s sexual orientation. However, the clause does not cover general concerns over the discrimination of groups or categories of people. Given that the majority of complainants considered that the cartoon discriminated against homosexual people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice." [Full ruling posted in comments]
This is the PCC's default position; you can say shitty things about a group, they're only concerned if an individual is attacked - and further, that someone involved personally complained.
Oh, except they rejected a complaint from Stephen Gately's civil partner, Andrew Cowles, over Jan Moir's awful piece about his death in The Daily Mail.
See also the PCC "ruling" on Richard Littlejohn last year saying all gay men are paedophiles, or their non-reply to a complaint from Fagburn about The Sun outing a trans person.
Complaining to the PCC or any offending media may seem pointless - and I'm not in favour of calls for censorship, or actually sure what people think they'll achieve by it - but Fagburn believes it makes others aware of our anger and disgust, and that they can't get away with writing - or drawing - homophobic trash.
Posts
Commission’s decision in the case of
ReplyDeleteVarious v Daily Mail
The Commission received over one hundred complaints about the cartoon. Virtually all the complainants considered that the portrayal of the couple in the cartoon discriminated against homosexual people. Many complainants also considered that the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) on the grounds that it was inaccurate to depict a gay man with a swastika tattoo. The vast majority of complainants found the article to be highly offensive.
The Commission acknowledged that many readers had been shocked by the publication of this cartoon, which was demonstrated by the large number of individuals who had complained to the Press Complaints Commission. In many cases, the complainants’ predominant concern appeared to be that the article was highly offensive. While the Commission understood the complainants’ views, it made clear that the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised. To come to an inevitably subjective judgement as to whether such material is tasteless or offensive would amount to the Commission acting as a moral arbiter, which can lead to censorship. It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
A number of complainants had raised concerns that the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. The clause specifies that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. In this instance, the Commission considered that the article was not intended to represent an accurate portrayal of the situation involving Steven Preddy and Martin Hall at the hotel owned by Peter and Hazelmary Bull, but rather it was intended to be a satirical comment referencing the situation and the court’s decision. It was satisfied that readers generally would not be misled into understanding that the cartoon was faithfully depicting that particular situation, but would be aware that it showed an imagined situation. It was therefore the Commission’s view that the cartoon was not in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code on this point.
In regard to the concern that it was inaccurate to depict a gay man displaying a swastika tattoo, the Commission emphasised that the cartoon was depicting figurative characters and not specific individuals. While it acknowledged the assertion made by many complainants that, given the treatment of homosexual people by Nazis, a gay man would not have this insignia tattooed on his arm, it did not consider that readers would be misled by the cartoon into understanding that homosexual people in general had an affiliation or association with Nazism or that they held similar views. Similarly, it did not consider that a depiction of the symbol “666” (which was not in any case clear in the cartoon) would imply that all gay people were connected with Satanism. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code...
Continues below
A small number of complainants were concerned that the cartoon falsely implied that those holding Christian beliefs were to be sympathised with, while gay people were aggressive. The Commission again emphasised that the cartoon depicted an imaginary situation with imaginary individuals, which had been published in reference to, but not representing, the experience of and subsequent court case of Steven Preddy and Martin Hall. In accordance with Clause 1 (Accuracy), newspapers are entitled to publish comment which had, in this case, appeared in the medium of a cartoon. The Commission did not consider that readers would understand the cartoon to amount to a universal statement of fact that homosexual people were aggressive and Christians were to be sympathised with. Rather, it was of the view that they would be aware that the cartoon represented satirical comment. With these points in mind, it did not consider that the article represented a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
ReplyDeleteVirtually all of the complainants considered that the portrayal of the couple in the cartoon, and especially the depiction of a swastika, was in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code. The terms of this clause state that the press must avoid making a prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s sexual orientation. However, the clause does not cover general concerns over the discrimination of groups or categories of people. Given that the majority of complainants considered that the cartoon discriminated against homosexual people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Some complainants had expressed concern that the cartoon discriminated specifically against Steven Preddy and Martin Hall. Given that the cartoon did not depict these individuals, but rather figurative characters, the Commission did not consider that the article discriminated against these individuals. In any case, it would require the direct involvement of these individuals in order to establish whether they considered that the cartoon discriminated against them.
One complainant had expressed concern that the article “‘Now some people are more equal than others’: Despair of Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away gays” had discriminated against gay people in its favourable presentation of the Bulls’ position. Again, the Commission made clear that Clause 12 (Discrimination) did not cover concerns about references to groups or categories of people, and it would require the involvement of Steven Preddy and Martin Hall, or their official representative, in order to establish whether they felt that the newspaper had discriminated against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
One complainant had raised a concern that the article was in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge). This clause was intended to prevent journalists from using hidden devices or subterfuge to obtain material for publication, and to ensure that they do not generally engage in misrepresentation to elicit information. The terms of this clause had not been engaged in this instance.
Finally, a number of complainants were concerned that the cartoon amounted to incitement to hatred. The Commission made clear that this was a legal matter which did not fall within its remit. As such, it could not comment on this aspect of the complaints further.