Why do you think the PCC is “forcing” the Daily Mail to do anything? The PCC doesn’t have any such power.

Good question. Its an assumption, based on the view that its unlikely the Mail would start doing this without prompting.

And the PCC recently unveiled new guidelines on online retractions…

Could the PCC now look into all the lies that were pushed by so many newspapers, and broadcasters like the BBC in the run up to the Iraq war?

Seeing as the famous “curve ball” has now admitted that most of what he said, which was used by Colin Powell in his united nations speech was all lies.

I particularly would like to hear from a Mr Andrew Neil, and Mr Michael Portillo who on the day of his speech were verbally jerking off, and thought his speech was magnificent. Even though at the time many people knew it was total bullshit.

Voluntarily placing your blog under the “self-regulation” of the PCC seems like a rather unwise decision, given the recent suggestions of extending its remit to cover publication beyond Fleet Street.

Considering the catalogue of inaccurate and downright unpleasant articles coming from the Daily Mail of late, find it strange to say the least that the PCC has got involved. Further evidence that self regulation is not working.

Completely of topic has anyone else seen this trailer of the next big movie trilogy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

Another reason to stay away from the big screen…

At least they still fall under the PCC unlike the Express…

@7

There’s a very good reason for that:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/committee.html
(see “Chairman”)

^Indeed, a somewhat ironic appointment.

Obviously a good decision to respect the families, but isn’t it in the Mails own interests to get stories critical of it taken down?

“Agreed” could mean a condition that was volunteered by the paper and not disputed by the PCC.

I suggest that you comply, in cases like this, but

1) Always inform your readers what has happened
2) Ask to see the letter from the PCC to the newspaper
3) Ask to see the retraction and apology in the newspaper

Once the complaint has been upheld against the Mail, they have an obvious interest in removing commentary, debate, and criticism that draws attention to this fact. Especially as the criticism is likely to be in much stronger terms than the quasi-official decision which proves the criticism is justified.

“Remove your commentary on the article ponting out it is false, because the article has been found to be false” is an obviously fatuous argument. It’s not like anyone reading the commentary might be left with the impression the article was true. You might as well say the press have to delete all previous coverage of MP’s expenses claims, in case through exposure to the claims the public is persuaded the information in them is true when it isn’t.

If the original article caused offence then a blogpost about the article might also cause offence. Therefore it is safer to remove the blogpost. However if you just remove the blgpost the whole incident goes down the memory hole. It is therefore better to replace it with a blogpost like this one.

I wonder whether the PCC has actually asked the Mail to request bloggers to remove their posts on this subject, which is why I suggest that you ask to see the letter from the PCC.

You should have told them to fuck right off.

Sunny

The point is just one of language – that the PCC has no power to “force” anyone to do anything.

The PCC actually only has one power – to request the publication of an adjudication. It doesn’t even have a mechanism to enforce this. The PCC exists on the basis of consent.

That doesn’t make it a bad thing – I just think it’s better to be clear about it.

Has there been a retraction and apology in the Mail?

Have you managed to see the letter from the PCC?

I’ve received a response from the PCC (despite the fact that I hadn’t asked for one – I’d asked the Mail for response).

It’s here: http://www.dailyquail.org/2011/02/response-from-pcc.html

It doesn’t really answer my questions, as you can see from the letter below that post. It does, however, imply that they may have “indirectly” asked the Mail to request removal of content.

Maybe. It’s so vague it’s difficult to tell.

Without knowing the background, I would have thought the best response would be to redact all personal/identifying info, while keeping the Mail critical post (surely substantiated by the PCC decision/agreement), adding a brief update about the PCC and/or offering to link to the Mail’s own apology/retraction or a PCC judgment to provide a full and accurate context. Apart from a judgment about personal details, retracting a story that breaks the code is not good grounds to request the deletion of articles criticising the original breach.

Sunder – the blog post was entirely about that article…. since that’s been taken off, makes little sense to have our blog post up there I think…

I agree with Sunder Katwala – the fact that the Mail printed the piece is still relevant, even if it’s decided to pull the article. Pulling the critical Lib Con article at this stage means no longer criticising the Mail just when the criticism appears to have been vindicated.

Take the analogous case of the Jan Moir/Stephen Gately article. I don’t remember whether the article was pulled when it began to encounter enormous criticism, but it would’ve made no sense for other news sites to remove all mention of the article if it had. The fact that the article was published in the first place is the relevant and censure-worthy point.

That’s why I think it makes sense to redact the offending information, and keep the article itself.