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.
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?
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”.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
6 Responses to “Paris Jackson: How the PCC is still a ‘toothless poodle’”
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.