For all other Mail-related topics
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#485050
Following an article published on MailOnline on 27 June 2016 headlined "Beatrice makes a splash on yet ANOTHER day off! Princess dives into the sea in a very skimpy bikini as she enjoys a sunshine break on a yacht in Monaco", HRH Princess Beatrice of York complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that MailOnline breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required MailOnline to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
The complainant said that the photographs were taken surreptitiously in circumstances in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy; she was on a private boat when the photographs were taken, and was on a private holiday, undertaking private leisure activities. Those on board the boat were not visible to the naked eye from the shore, and the photographs had been taken with a long lens. The complainant also expressed concern that the photographs showed her partially clothed and were accompanied by comments on her appearance, and her lack of clothing.

The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the photographs did not include any private information about the complainant, as she had previously been photographed in a bikini. It did not accept that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her location when the photographs were taken. It said that the photographs of the boat, which was anchored approximately 200m from the shore, had been taken using a 600mm lens, and had been cropped by the agency prior to submission. It said the public areas of the deck were facing the shore, were visible to the naked eye, and that the photographs had been taken from public land. It also noted that the complainant had been swimming from an area of the yacht that was at sea level, and not obstructed from view, and that there had been another boat in the vicinity at the time the photographs were taken.

The Committee noted that while the Code does not prohibit the use of long lens photography, the use of a long lens may be a relevant factor when the Committee considers whether there had been an intrusion into an individual’s privacy. The photographs did not show the complainant engaged in any official duties, and displayed her taking part in activities which formed part of her private life. The fact that the photographs had been taken with professional equipment but yet were of low quality, and had been cropped prior to submission, indicated that they had been taken from a considerable distance. The Committee was not therefore satisfied that the complainant had been visible to those on the shore, or had been aware that the photographs were being taken. Having regard for all these factors, the Committee was satisfied that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the photographs were taken. The taking and publishing of these photographs of the complainant, wearing a bikini, which the Committee noted placed a gratuitous and invasive focus on parts of the complainant’s body which would not ordinarily be subject to public scrutiny, represented a serious intrusion into the complainant’s privacy. As the Code makes clear, photographing an individual in such circumstances is unacceptable unless it can be justified in the public interest. The publication had not argued that there was a public interest in the publication of the photographs, and had been unable to justify the extent of the intrusion; the complaint under Clause 2 was upheld.
#499668
I may be wrong but their C&C's are usually hidden away in a seperate section on the website? This one is actually on the main page, albeit over half way down:




IPSO adjudication upheld: Colin Hales
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... Hales.html
Following publication of an article on MailOnline on 25 October 2016, headlined “Pilot in DIY 14-foot plane he built in his shed is halted at Chinese border after being ruled a MILITARY THREAT during round-the-world trip”, Colin Hales complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that MailOnline breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required MailOnline to publish this adjudication.

The article reported that on the complainant’s bid to fly solo around the world in an aircraft he had built himself, he had been halted by Chinese officials at the Russian border who said the he “posed a serious aerial threat to the nation”. The article claimed that the complainant had been “halted by armed guards on the border with Russia”, and contained a number of quotations from the complainant, in which he expressed his frustration at having been stopped.

The complainant denied making the comments expressing frustration at the decision of the Chinese authorities. In addition, he said it was inaccurate to report that he had been stopped by “armed guards”.

The publication said that the article was supplied by a freelance journalist, and it had published it in good faith. It said that the article had been based on information posted on the internet, and on a source, who had supplied quotations from the complainant, having said that they had been in contact with him. However, it did not provide further details about its sources. The publication of information obtained in this manner as a series of direct quotations from the complainant, without any steps being taken to verify them, constituted a serious failure take care over the accuracy of the article, and a breach of Clause 1 (i). The claim that the complainant was stopped by armed guards was the conjecture of the journalist. However, this was presented as a factual claim, and was not clearly distinguished from conjecture, in further breach of Clause 1 (i) and a breach of Clause 1 (iv).

Attributing the disputed quotations to the complainant was significantly misleading, such as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The principal subject of the article was the complainant’s difficulty in entering Chinese airspace; to claim that the complainant had been “halted by armed guards”, when in fact, he had simply been denied permission to enter Chinese airspace, significantly misrepresented the nature of the incident. This was a further significant inaccuracy.

In this case the publication had offered to publish a correction which met the requirements of Clause 1 (ii), and the inaccuracies in this case were not personally damaging to the complainant. However, the Committee was concerned by the severity of the breach of Clause 1 (i) in this instance, which represented a serious failure in the editorial process prior to publication. It considered that the publication of the offered correction would not be an appropriate remedy to this failure, and that the appropriate remedy was publication of this adjudication.
#519116
IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS climate science article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Following an article published on 5 February 2017 in the Mail on Sunday, headlined 'EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global warming', Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about a paper published in the journal Science that suggested that there had been no 'pause' in global warming in the 2000s. Dr Bates had published a blog criticising the way the data used for the paper had been analysed and archived. The article detailed at length the complainant's concerns with the data; it then characterised them as demonstrating 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper had been based upon 'misleading, unverified data'.

The article was illustrated with a graph. It plotted a red line, described as 'the 'adjusted' and unreliable sea data cited in the flawed 'Pausebuster' paper', and a blue line, described as 'the UK Met Office's independently verified record', which it said 'showed lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend'. A note at the base of the graph stated that '0 represents 14°C'.

The complainant said that the significance of Dr Bates' concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates' claims. World leaders had not been 'duped', as the headline said, and there was no 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper was based on 'misleading, unverified data', as the article had claimed.

The newspaper said that Dr Bates had shown it examples of both fully archived climate data and the less detailed version used for the paper; putting raw data on a website is not the same thing as full data archiving; therefore the evidence that the paper's data was unverified and misleading, was 'irrefutable'.

The Committee emphasised that its central concern was whether the article had accurately reported Dr Bates' concerns. It decided that the newspaper's claims that Dr Bates' testimony had provided 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper had been based on 'misleading, 'unverified' data', leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being 'duped' over global warming, and 'convinced' to invest billions in climate change, went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview; they did not represent criticisms of the data collection process, but rather, were assertions of fact that the data had been demonstrated conclusively to be wrong and had a significant impact on the decision making of world leaders, with an additional implication this had been part of a wilful attempt to deceive.

The article claimed that because of the NOAA's 'failure to 'archive' the data, 'its results can never be verified'. The Committee did not consider that the article had made sufficiently clear that the failure to archive, had been a failure to archive the data through a particular method, and that the data had been made publicly available. In characterising Dr Bates' claims in this way the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements, in breach of Clause 1 (ii).

The graph which accompanied the article had provided a visual illustration of the newspaper's contention regarding the difference between the 'flawed' NOAA data and other, 'verified', data. The newspaper's failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i), and there had been a further failure to correct the significantly misleading impression created as a result. There was a further breach of Clause 1 on this point.
 
By Big-Iain
Membership Days
#532024
Apology nowhere to be found on webshite at the moment, but luckily it can be found
At The BBC or
At The Guardian or
At The Independent or
At STV
As the original story only came out on 24th January, that seems a rather rapid apology. Usually the DM takes month to apologise. May this is related to the Scottish Government giving the offenders 28 day to apologise. 28 Days, or we release the zombies...
#535451
An article on November 5, 2016 entitled ‘How loved up Gary Lineker and his ex Danielle shocked fellow passengers with their amorous display on-board a British Airways flight’ reported claims made by a third party that Gary and Danielle had engaged in lewd and inappropriate sexual behaviour in a public place in front of young children.

While the article was published in good faith, we have since been informed by Gary and Danielle, and accept, that these claims are false.

We apologise for any distress and embarrassment caused.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... z58chXJ9TQ
#563295
The article had claimed that a UK court had said that the couple’s marriage was ‘valid and recognised’
In fact, the court found the marriage to be void under section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 due to it having been ‘entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage’ and specifically not ‘valid’.

:roll:

So you outright lied.




Correction: High Court judgment on Nikah Marriage divorce petition
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/articl ... ition.html

In an article headlined ‘Landmark ruling sees British court recognise sharia law for the first time as judge rules wife married in Islamic ceremony can make claim on husband's assets under UK law’, published on 2 August 2018, we reported on a High Court judgment, which concerned a divorce petition submitted by a wife against her husband. The couple had undertaken the Islamic law marriage ceremony, the Nikah.

The article had claimed that a UK court had said that the couple’s marriage was ‘valid and recognised’; it said that ‘before the landmark decision, the courts did not recognise [Nikah ceremonies] as a valid marriage’. In fact, the court found the marriage to be void under section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 due to it having been ‘entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage’ and specifically not ‘valid’. This means that, while the wife was entitled to a decree of nullity, thereby enabling her to seek relief which could potentially include a division of assets or maintenance, this was not because the marriage was found to be a ‘valid’ marriage under UK law. This correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
#563298
Why did it have to go as far as an IPSO adjudication to decide that there had to be a correction when the article itself was totally and provably incorrect?

Any suggestion that the article follows the Mail's anti-Muslim agenda is of course a vile calumny and should be disregarded. As will be the correction that's buried away on page 2 of the Mail under the weather report.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
The Tories, Generally

Imagine living in a world where IDS, Howard and […]

Yes, a quick read of Evelyn Waugh backs that up.[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Christ, Jenkyns is dim.

Boris Johnson

Old Tories loved the church because of its char[…]