Journalist Cleared on Discriminatory Slur

by Katy Murcutt - Paralegal

24 February 2010, filed under Consumer

The Press Complaints Commission has ruled that an article written about the death of singer Stephen Gately did not breach the Editor’s Code of Practice.

Six days after the Boyzone singer died of natural causes, the Daily Mail published an article written by Jan Moir which was regarded by many as being homophobic and discriminatory. The article dismissed the post mortem results and Moir stated that Gately’s death was “less than respectable” and “sleazy”. Andrew Cowles, who was Stephen Gately’s civil partner, complained to the Press Complaints Commission as the article published was inaccurate and discriminatory.

Along with Cowles, more than 25,000 members of the public complained to the Press Complaints Commission regarding the content of Jan Moir’s article. This record figure may have had greater impact if the complaints were directly linked to the inaccuracy of the information contained within the article. Instead of this, the complaints were regarding the homophobic and discriminatory nature of the column. The Press Complaints Commission only investigates complaints made by those not directly involved in an article if the complaint is regarding the inaccuracy of information in the article.

The complaints raised a crucial principle under the Editor’s Code of Practice as the press Complaints Commission had to decide to what extent a newspaper has the right to publish opinion that may be deemed offensive by members of the public.

The editor of the Irish version of the Daily Mail did not include Moir’s article in their edition of the newspaper.

The Press Complaints Commission stated that freedom of expression is essential to a democratic society and all individuals have a right to express an opinion.

The Press Complaints Commission’s adjudication over the Jan Moir column highlights the need for an in-house watchdog within newspapers, magazines and other online journalistic spaces where self-regulation is fundamental if restrictive legislation is not yet on the cards.

In March a seminar will be held by the House of Lords to address the issue of the Press Complaints Commission performing poorly to regulate newspapers and magazines. It is likely that the House of Lords focal point will be based on whether, in line with the Commission’s premise, that the issue is of great enough importance to override the feelings of the general public.