Today I’m going to do something I haven’t done in thirty years. I’m going to buy a copy of the Daily Record. Fear not I haven’t gone over to the dark side and joined the dependence junkies. I’ve just received rather good news from the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) regarding my complaint against the Daily Record and what I contend was their deliberate cropping of a photograph of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
To put you in the picture, sit back, relax, put up your feet, have a glass or mug of something enervating and I’ll tell you a tale. Comfortable? Good, then I’ll begin.
Back in November 2009 on the third month anniversary of the release, on compassionate grounds, of Mr Megrahi, those pesky scamps at the Daily Record decided it would be a jolly jape and no doubt a bit of a wheeze if they altered a photograph taken of Megrahi on the 20th of August, his release day. In a nod to Stalin’s passion for expunging folk from photos, they cut out the image of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi's son and plastered a label proclaiming 'Yesterday' over it. This gave the impression to their loyal readership that as of November 19th 2009 Mr Megrahi was in tip-top condition and was no doubt ready to don his speedos and participate in the All-African Water Polo Championships, opposed to a man who had been diagnosed with terminal prostrate cancer.
Now the more astute among you will recall mention of the fact, that I've stated this nefarious piece of judicious tabloid editing was suggested to me, as a suitable post for this here blog, by my former boss, the current Education Secretary Michael Russell. Despite his shift from an emphatic denial of the blogs existence to one of complete denial of knowledge of the blog contents, in many ways I see this post as completion of the final task he asked me to do. No doubt when the enquiry into email correspondence and my alleged blogging on parliamentary equipment finally takes place, if at all, investigators will find the email I received from the Scottish Parliamentary Information Centre informing me that the hard copy of the Daily Record was in fact missing from their archives. When I told Mr Russell about this, oddly enough in front of another member of the cabinet (whom I'll be delighted to call as a witness at my Unfair Dismissal Tribunal), the silly sausage told me not to worry that he would get one of the special advisor wonks to get a hard copy for me…
I first contacted the PCC back in January, funnily enough not very long after I’d been charged with Breach of the Peace and the details were leaked to everyone’s favourite Sunday Herald journalist, Paul Hutcheon. Not that that was my motivation, oh no. I merely thought the story was a good one and a perfect example of the Daily Records methods and their devotion to backing up the Labour Party at every opportunity. Besides any manipulation of a photograph of such an important event only serves to distort the truth.
I was therefore a bit taken a back when the PCC replied as follows:
In this instance, the newspaper has amended its files to ensure it has the correct date on the photograph. After some negotiation, the newspaper is also willing to publish a clarification on its website (to remain there for 48 hours). The wording of the piece would be as follows:
On 19 November 2009 we published a report about the health of the Lockerbie Bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, headlined “Megrahi’s ‘doing fine’”. It was accompanied by an image of Mr al Megrahi that supposedly showed him “doing fine” on the 18 November 2009. We would like to make clear to readers that the photograph was, in fact, taken in August 2009. While we understand that six months after his diagnosis Mr al Megrahi’s condition has not deteriorated significantly, we apologise to our readers for any confusion caused by the erroneous labelling of the image on the 19 November.
Now scrub me down with carbolic and call me Florence, but I didn't think much of their offer, don't get me wrong I was pleased that they were publishing a clarification, so I responded thus:
Dear Rebecca, many thanks for your prompt response.
I do have a couple of issues with The Daily Record 'apology' and would like the following questions answered.
1. Why was this image used? Particularly as it had to be cropped to remove Saif al-Islam Gaddafi from the image and the addition of the banner titled 'Yesterday' to mask Mr al Megrahi and Gaddafi clasping hands. It is my belief that the use of this image was significantly more than an 'erroneous' clerical error, it required a significant amount of work to crop, remove and add the banner. I would like some explanation as to why the journalist, picture editor, editor and Daily Record lawyer deemed it appropriate for publication.
2. "While we understand that six months after his diagnosis Mr al Megrahi’s condition has not deteriorated significantly." What medical evidence do the Daily Record have to substantiate this statement? It appears to me that this is a rather sordid way for the Daily Record to use their 'apology' to maintain their claim that Mr al Megrahi is not suffering from terminal prostrate cancer, when all expert medical evidence suggests otherwise. It reads more like petty political point scoring rather than a genuine apology. I would not expect such a disingenuous statement to be included in any apology, unless the Daily Record have the very latest medical records for Mr al Megrahi and can prove their statement.
3. A brief appearance on a free access website is hardly an apology. I believe the Daily Record owe it their 'paying' readers to publish their apology both in print and on-line. It is after all, in its current state, a paltry 100 words and would take up little space inside their newspaper.
Once again many thanks for your help in this matter.
Kind regards
Mark
A couple of weeks passed and I hadn't heard anything. A request for info from the PCC elicited this response:
The newspaper’s solicitors advised me on Friday that it had nothing to add in light of your comments and, as a resolution could not be reached, the matter will now be passed to the Commission for its formal consideration under the Code. I do hope this is acceptable.
Kind regards,
Rebecca
A request for a time line from the PCC brought about this reply:
Dear Mark,
Your case will be circulated to the Commission this week.
I have a feeling that this complaint will provoke much discussion but usual procedure would be for a decision to be finalised within two weeks. However, it may be that the Commission has more questions that require investigation and if that happens I will, of course, keep you up to date with any developments.
Kind regards,
Rebecca
On the 16th of March I received this absolute stonker of an email from the PCC with an attempt by the Daily Record and their Lawyers to muddy the water, go on guess who...oh OK none other than Levy & MacRae, those lovely people who represent just about every newspaper and media outlet in Scotland ohh and Steven Purcell the coke loving former Labour leader of Glasgow City Council...
Here's their email to the PCC and forwarded to me:
DMcK/LL/DAI002/728
Dear Ms Hales,
DAILY RECORD
COMPLAINT BY MARK MACLACHLAN
YOUR REF: 100369
This letter follows our recent discussion.
We note that the matter will go to the Commission for a decision.
Please clarify in the first instance whether the complaint is in fact timebarred as we understand it was made more than two months after publication. If so, perhaps you could set out on what basis the Commission is dealing with the complaint. The photograph complained of is not on the web edition of the newspaper and so it doesn’t remain an ongoing or active matter in terms of the Code’s
timebar exceptions.
Secondly, the complaint is not from someone not directly affected by the matters about which they are complaining.
Our clients would like the following information to be taken into account when determining this matter.
The starting point is that our clients accept that the photograph was not taken the day before. Therefore, they accept that the caption on the photograph was inaccurate. Their dispute is over their proposed resolution.
They would ask you to take account of the following factors: -
1. This was not a material inaccuracy. The photograph of
Mr al-Megrahi was taken on the date that he left Scotland for Libya.
On that date, he had already been diagnosed as terminally ill. The
photograph is therefore one of a terminally ill man. It is not a
photograph of Mr al-Megrahi in full health, which appears to be the
suggestion of the complainer. Accordingly, the photograph is not
materially misleading or inaccurate. It is not a photograph of an
individual in good health.
2. The complainer in this case is someone who has a blog by
the name of “The Universality of Cheese”. In January 2010, the
liar and other observations”. In that blog, Mr MacLachlan, who is, or was until recently, a prominent member of the Scottish National
Party, refers to the newspaper as “The Labour Party in-house
journal” and describes the Daily Record’s approach to the release of
the Lockerbie bomber has having been “completely vituperative in
condemning MacAskill’s decision”. He went on to say “There appears
to be some desperate wish on the part of the Labour Party and the
tabloids for Megrahi to remain alive, not on humanitarian grounds,
but merely to embarrass MacAskill. Some have even gone so far as to
deliberately mislead their readership with flagrant lies, deceit and
propaganda”. The only newspaper mentioned by Mr MacLachlan on his
blog prior to that sentence was our clients, the Daily Record.
Furthermore he describes the use of the photograph of Mr al-Megrahi
published in the Daily Record on 19th November 2009 as being
“subterfuge and propaganda”. This blog shows that the complainer
is not approaching his complaint from an objective point of view.
He appears to have political leanings which are contrary to the
editorial viewpoint of the Daily Record and he also appears to have
made certain assumptions and suppositions which are groundless in
fact, about the editorial intent of the Daily Record in the
publication of the article. They are of course also defamatory.
While our clients fully recognise Mr MacLachlan’s perfectly legitimate right to complain about the Daily Record, his complaint should be seen in that context.
With regard to the report of Mr al-Megrahi’s illness, the article was simply reporting what had been appearing in newspaper in Tripoli, and that is perfectly clear from the article, namely that Mr al-Megrahi was reported as “doing fine” by members of his family, according to the Tripoli Post.
If the complainer accepts the apparent evidence of the family i.e. that Mr al-Megrahi was “doing fine” our clients cannot understand the concern which he has over the way in which the photograph was presented.
Notwithstanding concerns over timebar, the fact that the complainer is not directly connected to the subject matter of the article and the fact that our clients do not consider the inaccuracy to be material, they have made an offer to publish the correction on their website and they have already marked their files, which in their view is an adequate and sufficient response to the issue. We look forward to hearing from you once you have had the opportunity of considering the above.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID McKIE
Now this was starting to become fun. I responded thus:
Dear Rebecca, many thanks for forwarding the Daily Records response.
I wish to add that I am no longer a member of the SNP, I haven't been since last year. Also I was never a prominent member of the party, I was a local branch secretary and worked as a Constituency Manager for a Regional (list) MSP. Hardly at the centre of the action as my meagre salary (£25,000) demonstrates.
I'm somewhat surprised that the Daily Records lawyer's, Mr McKie, presumes that one has to be directly affected by the offending photograph in order to complain about deliberate image manipulation..
As regards my blog, I can tell you that exactly 43 people read the post Mr McKie refers to in January. The Daily Record sold an average of 309,846 issues in January according to February's ABC's. A grand total of three people commented on the blog post. As you will see from our earliest correspondence I sent you a link to the blog post, which has a photograph and my name on the very front page, therefore there was no attempt to hide this information from the PCC.
As to Mr McKie's obfuscation and semantics on the definition of 'doing fine' and on Mr al Megrahi's health, the fact remains that by doctoring a photograph and labelling it as 'Yesterday', the Daily Record sought to suggest that the photograph of Mr al Megrahi "doing fine." was dated November 18th which was entirely false, as the photograph was taken two months earlier. To base their report on an uncredited family member commenting to the Tripoli Post is a world of difference from The Daily Record having access to the terminally ill Mr al-Megrahi's medical records.
The Daily Record may not have the image on its website they did, however, use it to sell some 300,000 plus copies of their newspaper.
I am very content that the commission takes a look at both sides of the debate in this matter.
Best wishes
Mark
PS Dear Rebecca,
I forgot to mention that Mr McKie failed to place his complaint, that I was singling out the Daily Record as being vituperative, in context. The whole sentence reads as follows: "The Daily Record much like the rest of the British tabloids and American media have been completely vituperative in condemning MacAskill's decision."
This can be confirmed by reading the link below.
http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2010/01/daily-record-is-big-fat-liar-and-other.html
I hasten to add that the motive of my complaint is not political, it is a plea for accuracy from the Daily Record, whatever their editorial viewpoint.
cheers
Mark
I was therefore delighted to pick up the following email from Rebecca at the PCC when I came back from holiday at the weekend:
Dear Mr MacLachlan,
As you are aware, the Commission recently considered your complaint
against the Daily Record on a formal basis under the terms of the Code
of Practice.
The Commission agreed that even with the delay in this complaint, the
newspaper's offer of a correction published for a limited time online
was not a sufficient response to your concerns.
I was asked to request the publication of a correction in the newspaper
at the soonest opportunity. Please see below for confirmation that the
newspaper will be publishing the following in print next week:
"On 19 November 2009 we published a report about the health of the
Lockerbie Bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, headlined "Megrahi's
'doing fine'". It was accompanied by an image of Mr al-Megrahi that was
said to have to been taken "yesterday". We would like to make clear to
readers that the photograph was, in fact, taken in August 2009."
I have been advised that it is likely the piece will appear with due
prominence as required by the Code this coming Tuesday. Do let me know
whether this action represents a suitable resolution to your complaint.
If you are happy with this, I should be able to confirm the publication
date on Monday.
I think I mentioned in an earlier email that resolving a complaint with
the PCC means has the added benefit that a summary of your complaint -
with your consent and a wording agreed by you - will be published on our
website to act, importantly, as a further public record of your concerns
and the subsequent remedial action taken by the newspaper.
I look forward to hearing from you at your soonest convenience.
Kind regards,
Rebecca
-----Original Message-----
From: d.stewart-brown@dailyrecord.co.uk
[mailto:d.stewart-brown@dailyrecord.co.uk]
Sent: 08 April 2010 15:50
To: Becky Hales
Subject: Re: Complaint 100369
Afternoon,
Absolutely happy with that and we will endeavour
to publish early next week. I will of course inform you first of location
within the newspaper and position.
Kind regards
Derek Stewart-Brown
Managing Editor
I do apologise for the length of this post, however I do feel it's important for us all to know that when we witness our media being flagrantly dishonest with their viewers, listeners or readers that we take them to task by complaining to the appropriate authorities.
I'm fully aware that this is not the grovelling apology I would have wished for. However, a printed correction in their own pages is far better than one tucked away on an anonymous website page for a mere 48 hours. I consider this a victory for me sticking it to the artless palimpsest of gibberish the Daily Record foists on its readership every day, and most importantly the completion of a task that was suggested to me by my then employer.
Posts
