UPDATED 17/10/09 See below.
Having read this article written by Jan Moir and published in today’s Daily Mail, I decided to contact the Press Complaints Commission.
This is the text of my complaint. It’s not perfect, but I hope I have referred to the Code of Practice in detail and made my case. If anyone would like to use this as a draft for their own complaint to the PCC, I would be very happy for you to do so – the more people who complain to the PCC about this, the better.
Please explain how you believe the Code of Practice has been breached:
Clause 1 section i) of the Code of Practice states:
“The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”
The article states that “Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this. All that has been established so far is that Stephen Gately was not murdered.”
The post mortem into Mr Gately’s death in fact established a natural cause well before the publication of this article. Phrasing such as “by any yardstick” and “let us be absolutely clear about this” significantly distorts the truth well beyond what is allowed under fair comment.
Clause 5, section i) of the Code of Practice states:
“In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.”
The article asserts that “something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage.”
To be quite frank, I find the insinuation that Mr Gately’s family have “shaped and spun” the circumstances of his death rather disgusting, and with little or no factual support.
Mr Gately’s family was not given a right of reply to this highly contentious claim, breaching the requirement to make enquiries and approaches to the grieving with sympathy and discretion. No such enquiries or approaches were made. This is a serious breach.
Publication must also be handled sensitively. I do not find the comparison of the sudden death of a 33 year-old man to a “broken teacup in the rented cottage” to have fulfilled this requirement.
Clause 12, section i) of the Code of Practice states:
“The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.”
Clause 12, section ii) of the Code of Practice states:
“Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.”
Stephen Gately’s sexual orientation was not genuinely relevant to the circumstances or causes of his death. The article’s entire purpose is to assert the contrary on an extremely slender factual basis.
For example:
“After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards…
Cowles and Dochev went to the bedroom together while Stephen remained alone in the living room…
What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone’s guess…
It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death…
As a gay rights champion, I am sure he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine.”
This entire chain of argument is clearly designed to imply that sexual activity and sexual orientation played a part in Mr Gately’s death, or that it somehow must be proven that they did not play such a part.
Only the most circumstantial facts, and considerable innuendo, are offered in support of this argument, severely testing the direct relevance of the point. Furthermore, what happened is not “anyone’s guess” – a post mortem report was published before the date of this article.
Moreover, I consider the use of baseless sexual innuendo against Andrew Cowles and Georgi Dochev to be highly perojative, and to have also breached the requirement to avoid details of an individual’s sexual orientation unless directly relevant to the story.
Finally, having aimed to establish that sexual orientation played some part in Mr Gately’s death, the article refers to his sexual orientation in highly perojative terms: “more than a little sleazy”, “a very different and more dangerous lifestyle”.
This is unacceptable.
The PCC must act. I don’t think I’ve read such a vile article from the Mail in a long, long time. Oh wait – maybe I have.
PS
The PCC replied to my complaint yesterday afternoon. This would be in addition to the thousand or so other people who contacted the organisation. Here it is:
Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.
I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately’s bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.
We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC’s roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.
On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and we may not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.
I think the Commission should waive its third party rules in this case. There is a patent public interest in not allowing national newspapers to report a public figure’s death in a way that is directly contrary to the clearly established facts, fair comment notwithstanding.
Oh, and there is a patent public interest in not allowing national newspapers to use the death of a public figure to launch an attack on a social minority. Especially a minority which has experienced a long history of discrimination and gross intrusion into its privacy.
I would like to make these points to the PCC – but I will wait until those directly affected by the article decide whether to press their case first.
For the time being, I guess the whole Jan Moir episode is what Barack Obama likes to call a ‘teachable moment’, in terms of media regulation. Why can Ofcom accept third party claims, but the PCC cannot?
Is this fair? Is it just? And above all – is it sustainable in the new media age?
