IPSO rulings

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[debra9275]

So, your big problem is that I called them ministers instead of MP's?"

"Most wouldn't have to explain that when discussing a division in the HOR that the vote is between cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers..

Which is also wrong

not if you are capable of changing the word "ministers' into MP's which is what i should've said... but hey. I don't claim to be perfect and i don't ever sweat the 'small  stuff" 

however that was a very funny 'gaffe' from the PM in Parliament when he said "doing a Turnbull" instead of doing a "turnback" 

[debra9275]

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-of-old-declares-war-on-bill-20150619-ghscm8

Tony Abbott has reverted to the tactics that proved so devastatingly effective in opposition in a bid to achieve ascendancy over Bill Shorten, wedge Labor on national security, consolidate his own recovery and increase his flexibility on election timing.

By reducing the complex issue of citizenship to a slogan, shattering any prospect of bipartisanship on security and brazenly misrepresenting the position of the country's foremost expert in terrorism law, the Prime Minister is out to maximise short and medium-term political advantage.

Having declared that "Daesh is coming, if it can, for every person and for every government with a simple message: submit or die", Abbott's emphatic message now is that Australians are safer from terrorism under the Coalition. This is an extraordinary and irresponsible claim.

[monman12]

"newscorp's The Times has been found to have printed untrue front page stories in the UK election."

Gosh really, and not just inaccurate as accepted by the complainant ( I could not find the mention of "untrue" in the IPSO ruling)?

Perhaps the comment:  "The Times has been found to have printed untrue front page stories ....." itself is "untrue" !

Anyway what happened in the UK media jungle, whilst being fascinating to us antipodeans, might be offset by events HERE, and from the once described as The great lefty-curmudgeonly  The Sydney Morning Herald

"Case Law, Australia: Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, Damages increase for restaurateurs defamed by Sydney Morning Herald review"

How about this apropos an ABC story:
"..........The story reported allegations that News Limited had given some real estate agents in Melbourne loyalty payments so that they would do business only with News Limited publications".

"The ABC acknowledged that reasonable efforts were not made to ensure that material facts were accurate and presented in context; the allegations were not supported by documented evidence and reasonable efforts were not made to corroborate material facts prior to broadcast."

My point (yet again) is that  the media, political parties, politicians et al,  all do it, here also,  why would a UK event be of any particular interest?

[debra9275]

Why didn't you just say that I'd used the wrong term calling them ministers instead of MP's instead of trying to cast doubt over the numbers, the division vote etc.? Less mileage that way?

[debra9275]

A word of advice... Look for the words "inaccurate and "misleading " In the IPSO ruling

[monman12]

"A word of advice... Look for the words "inaccurate and "misleading " In the IPSO ruling"

Why?  when the term that has been bandied around is "untrue",   which the complainant "over there" did not use, and was not even mentioned in  the UK's  IPSO ruling.

However,  why does an event the other side of the globe matter here,  when if you wish,  you can find a plethora of  reports and findings apropos all manner of  complaints to  the Australian Press Council  or the Australian Communications and Media Authority,

and you are free to select whatever ones that appeal,  or not.

Choose Australian

[debra9275]

I thought you preferred people's own comments rather than C & P's. so which is it??? should I have just quoted a C & P from the article??

[debra9275]

this should explain the relevence of posting that article from the IPSO UK board

 regarding misleading tabloid front pages ( just a small sample I happen to have at hand)

have the bikies taken over QLd since the Newman Govt. was dumped?? Does anyone know?  I haven't heard any more about it

[monman12]

"I thought you preferred people's own comments rather than C & P's. so which is it??? should I have just quoted a C & P from the article??"

Incorrect, I like reasoned comment as an adjunct to a C&P,  not comments which are in themselves fictitious.

"newscorp's The Times has been found to have printed untrue front page stories in the UK election."

[debra9275]

OK C & P then

(please don't complain again about these too)

IPSO rulings

Summary of complaint

Decision of the Complaints Committee
03125-15 Portes v The Times

1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour’s £1,000 tax on families”, published on 24 April 2015.
 
2. The article, published on the front page of the print newspaper, reported on an Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis of the main political parties’ tax proposals, in advance of the General Election.
 
3. The complainant said that the headline and the claim in the opening sentence of the article, that “Ed Miliband would saddle every working family with extra taxes equivalent to more than £1,000,” were inaccurate. The taxes and levies proposed by the Labour Party would primarily be raised from companies and the richest individuals; not only would they not affect all families equally, many families would not be materially affected by the taxes at all. Furthermore, the calculation was misleading because it related only to “working households”, a statistical term for households in which all individuals of working age are in work. Spread across all households in which at least one adult was in work, the figure was approximately £600 per family.

Relevant Code Provisions

11. 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.

Findings of the Committee

12. While per-household or per-capita sums may be useful in some instances for illustrative purposes, the headline and first sentence of the article had gone further, suggesting that the Labour tax plan would directly impose additional taxes on “every working family”. In fact, none of the additional taxes listed in the article would directly affect all working families. Some would affect a subset, and some were directed at corporations. The correct information in this case was in the public domain and easily accessible, and the headline and first paragraph of the article were clearly inconsistent with the detail included in the remainder of the article. The way in which the newspaper characterised the findings of the IFS report represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, resulting in a significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
 
13. Front pages are of particular importance to newspapers as they provide a publication with an opportunity to communicate with potential new readers. They are therefore valuable both commercially and editorially, as a means of expression. Further, front pages generally inform readers, using limited space, of the main news stories of that day.
 
14. There are circumstances in which a front-page correction may be required by the Editors’ Code, regardless of the existence of an established Corrections and Clarifications column. In deciding whether to require such a correction, the Committee must act proportionately; front-page corrections are generally reserved for the most serious cases.
 
15. The Committee considered whether this was one such case. In assessing the requirement for “due prominence,” the Committee takes into account both the prominence of the original article and the seriousness of the breach. In general, the Committee welcomes established corrections columns as an effective way of demonstrating a commitment to correcting errors when they occur.
 
16. The Committee recognised the value of publishing the correction in the newspaper’s established column; choosing to place some corrections in another part of the newspaper could undermine the advantages of having a consistent position for corrections. However, the Committee was concerned that the newspaper had prominently published material which was so plainly inaccurate. Given the nature and prominence of the original breach, the prominence of the correction was not sufficient and therefore the requirements of Clause 1 (ii) had not been met.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial Action Required

18. The inaccuracy which had been established required a correction to remedy it. The newspaper had already published a correction, amended the online article, and appended the correction as a footnote. The Committee acknowledged that the newspaper had acted in good faith, attempting to remedy the inaccuracy in a way which it believed complied with the terms of the Code, and ensuring publication prior to the imminent General Election. However, the Committee had determined that this correction was not duly prominent; it therefore required further action in order to remedy the established breach of the Code.
 
19. The correction should now be republished in the Corrections and Clarifications column, with a reference to the correction on the front page. The front-page reference should include the word “correction” and refer to IPSO’s upheld ruling. It should make clear the subject matter of the original article, and direct readers to the page on which the correction could be found; it should be agreed with IPSO in advance. The correction itself should include an acknowledgement that the correction was being republished with a front-page reference following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
 
20. The Committee welcomed the amendments which the newspaper had made to the online article; however, a stand-alone correction should now also be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link on the homepage. The link should remain on the homepage for a minimum of 48 hours; thereafter, the correction should be archived in the usual way. This correction should link to the amended article and make clear that it has been published following a ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

so it was found to be inaccurate and misleading  ( or in my own words, not true)