The PCC, Jan Moir and THAT article, a few notes.

Now I'm not going to make this a long post. Pretty much everything that has been said about the original article on Stephen Gatelys (I don't want to do it justice by posting it up. It's as badly written as it is nasty.) by Jan Moir (Charlie Brooker from the Guardian, sums it up brilliantly), and the rejection; by the PCC, (Enemies of Reason cover the outcome of the PCC ruling in more detail)of the 25,000 complaints the article garnered, including one from Andrew Cowles, Stephens civil partner, who understandably thought the article was tasteless and badly timed (it was written before his funeral.). I wasn't originally going to comment on it, as what has already been said about it is so comprehensive. It was a nasty article. A typical Daily Mail finger wagging fire and brimstone affair, loaded with half baked insinuation, ill minded speculation, and homophobic innuendo. Full of sanctimonious and passive - aggressive judgemental reaction, acid tongued sermonising, and being guilty of the ghoulishness it claims everyone else showing about the death.

Now I'm not one for banning stuff, just because I don't approve of it (unlike the Mail, and its columnists.). People should self-police a bit more what they are exposed to. If something says it may offend, you should stay away, not dictate to others what they can and cannot see. And this brings a bit of a dilemma up, and the point of this post. Some have said that these kinds of complaints to the PCC, are an example of trying to curtail freedom of speech. However, I agree with the right of those who complained to complain, and I feel that a sub ed at the Mail should at the very least, have considered deferring the article til after the funeral, (in this case I think the rights of Stephens family and friends to lay him to rest, override the right to print this article before the funeral.) or consulting with Moir about some of the innuendo and insinuations (I mean implying that someone has not been truthful about the coroners report into the death, is on the slippery slope to a very serious media incident.) and possibly re-wording the article. The flaw for the free speech argument is,- for me; this. This is the second most widely read paper in Britain, not an obscure blogger at work. This should bring with it (but often doesn't) a sense of responsibility to journalism, when innuendo and speculation have a chance to inflict harm, due to the size of the audience. Yes she has the right to her opinions, but in an ideal setting, a responsible journalist has to say, just because I can write an article, should I. We accept this quite readily in other lines of work. You can, if you feel like it, tell customers or clients to sod off, if you're having a day but you shouldn't as it is bad for business, and you could get in bother for it. This on one level happened, Marks and Sparks stopped advertising on the Mails site for a start. The article was almost certainly on the periphery of breaching PCC guidelines, I don't see why Moir should have not been reprimanded, by Mail chiefs more than she was (if she was at all.) One thing I am sure of though is that Paul Dacre, who is the chairman of the PCC code committee (who monitor the codes of practice) had absolutely no say in the final outcome. No really ))-: