So I joined in the whole Jan Moir thing
October 16, 2009
Just to get this on record for anyone who is following this, this is the complaint I sent to the PCC earlier on today, using a form which I can't currently get the URL to, given that the site is down. Here is the wording of my complaint (left out the admin type bits)
(No, I don't think I really need to post a link to the article do I? Not now. Not going to either. I think I had to link to the Mail once on here, and I didn't like it then.)
----------------------------------
Explanation : 1. Accuracy. The code states:
"The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information".
Even in the headline, which does not take care to suggest any
possibility of problems in the medical examination of Stephen Gately
after his death - it states clearly that the medical result was
inaccurate (and presents no factual evidence to back up this claim)
2. This is repeated during the article, again, with absolutely no
factual evidence to back it up, and yet Ms Moir seems to be determined
to press home her creative and non-factual version of events:
"Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural
one. Let us be absolutely clear about this."
No evidence given. Clearly Ms Moir is either entirely wrong, or quite
the worst investigative journalist I've ever read, since she doesn't
lay out her case.
3. "Intrusion in to grief or shock".
This terrible article, which is inferring lies, extreme homophobia and
insults not only about Stephen Gately, but his civil Partner, less than
a week (OK! I got that wrong, I don't follow celebrity death that closely) after the young man in question died of natural causes is disgusting.
5. Discrimination: the whole article is permeated with homophobia - fear
of a homosexual lifestyle, or homosexual relationships. Jan Moir infers
that the "ooze" of a gay lifestyle is somehow terrible and awful.
I could have been more specific but I, you know. Was at work n'stuff. So here's the reply from the PCC, from a Mr Yip (points for them though, at least it came from a human being):
------------------------------------------------------
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'm not going to start ranting about how confusing it is that I had a complaint, and I went to the "Complaints" commission, and apparently they don't want to hear it. I'll just put my reply up:
-------------------------------------------------
Sirs,
Thank you very much for your email explaining your position.
Whilst I agree with you that on matters of privacy and personal grief,
those aspects of the article should come under the umbrella of you
'Direct involvement' requirement, the complaint also puts equal weight
behind the lack of accuracy with regard to the cause of death, which
is public knowledge, and more importantly, the article makes broad
ranging generalisations with regard to the institution of Civil
Partnership, which are not directly related to Mr Gately. It also
attempts to make a comparison between the death of someone recently
who was battling a drug addiction with this death. The only
similarities in the cases being that the parties happened to be gay
men. This is clearly discriminatory in a broad, and not personalised
sense. My case then is that this affects me personally, not only as
someone who knows people who have had a civil Partnership, but as a
woman who has had relationships with women, and therefore could be
described as bi-sexual or as having had "gay" relationships.
I hope that given the weight of, and number of justifiable complaints
in this case that you will act upon the more universal aspects of the
complaints, since the only other avenue for those who are horrified by
the homophobia in this article is the courts. My own view would be
that the organisation created to handle "Complaints" should be a more
efficient mode of dealing with the fallout from this?
Thank you for your time,
-------------------------------------
So very polite, I hope you'll agree. We'll see what they come back with.
It is interesting, all this. I'm not sure anyone really knows how to deal with these crowd situations, and have no idea what the impact is or will be. But those crowds, they keep on coming.