Frank Field MP: PCC ruling
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Click here for article
Click here for article
Mr Frank Field MP complained to the Press Complaints Commission that a front-page report of an interview that he had given to The Independent published on 9 June 2000 was inaccurately headlined "Blair 'all spin and little delivery' - Field" in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice. He also complained that the subsequent publication of a letter from him was not an adequate remedy under the Code.
The complaint was upheld.
The complainant said that the headline wrongly suggested that he had stated the words in inverted commas. He had not said those words and requested that a "small correction and apology" be published on the front page, and that a letter be published. The first request was rejected by the newspaper, which did, however, publish a letter from the complainant denying that he had made the remark. The complainant considered this inadequate as there was no acknowledgement of the error from the newspaper itself. The newspaper accepted that the headline should not have been used but did not consider that it substantially misrepresented his views as set out in the article itself. They argued that the error was therefore only slight and the remedial action in publishing a letter from the complainant was suitable in the circumstances. The complainant denied this and insisted that the headline was damagingly misleading.
The Commission agreed with both parties that an error had occurred which warranted correction. However, Clause 1(iii) of the Code requires that an apology be published whenever appropriate and the Commission considered that, in such a case where a clear mistake had been made, the newspaper should have apologised. The publication of the complainant's letter was not considered to be a sufficient remedy under the Code.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments