Paris Jackson: How the PCC is still a ‘toothless poodle’

The Editors' Code is the benchmark set by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) for the ethical standards that the press are supposed to follow, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know.

Paris Jackson

The Press Complaints Commission Editors’ Code of Practice states in article 6.v that:

Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.’

So how, then, have today’s papers treated the news that the daughter of the late singer Michael Jackson has apparently attempted suicide?

How do you think?

Paris Jackson 1

The Editors’ Code is supposed to be the benchmark set by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) for the ethical standards that the press are supposed to follow, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know.

Considering the blatant way in which the press have once again ignored the code, the PCC appears to be living up to the name Ed Miliband gave it in 2011: a “toothless poodle”.

6 Responses to “Paris Jackson: How the PCC is still a ‘toothless poodle’”

  1. LB

    So go to court.

    Ah yes, its the state again. Monopoly supplier. Highly unionised. End result the costs are ramped up and up so people can’t afford legal services.

  2. James Graham

    Isn’t there also advice from the Samaritans et al on the reporting of suicide in that you should make it as undramatic and hyperbolic as possible to avoid copycats?

  3. Mark

    The PCC is so toothless that unless Paris or her family complain personally then I don’t think they will even bother look at this. It’s bad enough that they covered it, only The Guardian have pulled their coverage in the wake of public backlash, it is a little bit stomach churning.

  4. Richard Gadsden

    Go to court for what? It’s not illegal to run the story – it’s true and not obtained illegally.

    The problem is that they are not living up to their own ethics. In a normal profession, that gets you struck off.

  5. LB

    The problem is that for lots of people they cannot afford the legal bills, because the legal bills are so much.

    Fix the costs of legal action, and the PCC becomes an irrelevance. You just sue.

    So the core question is not the PCC, its why the cost of getting legal redress is so high.

    It’s unionised, its a state monopoly, its there to look after those who make money out of the system.

    For example, Leverson took a lot of public money as a laywer to come to the conclusion, we need more law and hence more lawyers. Really?

    We need cheap and effective legal redress. That solves the entire press thing, along with the police taking action.

    That reminds me, I have to chase up with Elvenden whether or not the corrupt journalist has been investigated. Somehow I suspect one Police inspector has shelved the report. Silly billy, should realize that sometimes the public records phone calls too.

  6. Richard Gadsden

    Sue for what?

    Seriously, what grounds would Paris Jackson have for legal action?

    The newspaper didn’t do anything illegal, making it rather difficult to that the problem in this case is the courts. What they did was unethical but you don’t get to sue people for being unethical.

Leave a Reply