What happens when a newspaper ignores the PCC?

This piece has been updated. See bottom for details.

As the only formal means of redressing most inaccurate reporting in newspapers, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) needs to be firmly on the side of readers in effectively upholding the Editors' Code of Practice and bringing about the best possible resolution to each and every case brought before it.

The complaints body fell short of these standards last week when it effectively appeared to spoon-feed the Sun newspaper with an inadequate correction previously offered by the Daily Mail on the same subject.

Full Fact is currently negotiating corrections with the two newspapers over their inaccurate coverage of a study by the Government's 'Troubled Families Tsar' Louise Casey which purportedly "revealed" and "exposed" 120,000 problem families.

The report - based on only 16 families - revealed nothing representative of these families, nor is the 120,000 figure what it was initially made out to be by the Government.

Full Fact took both papers to the Press Complaints Commission after neither responded upfront to our requests for corrections. However, after initial resistance and eight weeks of negotiation we were suprised to find that both newspapers offered identical - and inadequate - clarifications to their pieces.

The Mail were first to offer a paragraph of clarification, which wasn't good enough for several reasons:

1) There was no admission that the original report was inaccurate.
2) The crucial point that the report was not representative of the alleged 120,000 families deemed as 'troubled' wasn't made clear.
3) No offer was made to amend or remove the original inaccurate wording.

One week later we were dismayed to see that the Sun clearly had access to this correction offer and had copied it word-for-word.

After we raised questions about this the PCC responded by telling us they had suggested the Mail's wording to the Sun as the latter had not yet responded with an offer, in spite of the fact that we had not agreed with the Mail's wording.

It was confirmed this was a tactic used by the PCC in the relatively rare cases of newspapers failing to offer any sort of action to resolve a complaint.

This is a problem when the complaints body is suggesting entirely inadequate corrections from one publication to other, less reponsive publications. It allows newspapers to fall back on all-too-familiar remedies that simply don't address the heart of their inaccurate reporting.

It also seems to be at odds with the PCC's own guidance which states:

"Material provided by both complainants and publications during a PCC investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint being considered by the PCC."

We have spoken many times of our respect for those at the sharp end of the PCC complaints process, who give the best service they can with the powers they have, and obviously it's important that the complaints body helps move cases forward as quickly as possible. But this shouldn't amount to spoon-feeding poor answers to other papers involved in inaccurate reporting.

It is easy to see how this can seem helpful but it is propping up a system that doesn't work. Without a response the PCC would have been perfectly within its rights to take the Sun to adjudication from which the newspaper could have been properly held to account for its mistake and its unwillingness to correct it.

The fundamental problem is that the PCC doesn't have the power to compel newspapers to engage with its process and is left in a position where doing their job for them, rather than acting as a true regulator, seems like the best way forward.

What's concerning is that industry leaders seem to think this is not only acceptable but actually good. PCC Chairman Lord Hunt commented in his recommendations to the Leveson Inquiry into press standards that:

"I have argued from the outset that the existing complaints function of the PCC is very effective and I adhere to that view"

This is the complaints function he refers to as "brokered or proxy negotiation." It is so effective according to the Chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance, Lord Black, that he recommends in his submission that most disputes can "be mediated through a process of conciliation."

From long experience, we disagree. These brokered negotiations demand a lot of time and energy from complainants and are rarely fast and effective.

What's needed is an institution which has the necessary powers to uphold standards, not just mediate complaints. An effective standards body cannot be messed around by a newspaper choosing not to respond to a legitimate complaint.

Update

The PCC confirmed to Full Fact that its complaints handling procedures involve the regular drafting of corrections wording in order to move complaints forward, and this doesn't necessarily happen only when a newspaper's own response is delayed. We are grateful for the clarification and are happy to make our readers aware of this as well.