Pages

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Gately complaint: press watchdog says no

It’s hard to accept the decision of the UK’s Press Complaints Commission, I know, when it decided yesterday not to uphold a complaint against a Daily Mail columnist who was critical of the dead Boyzone star Stephen Gately.

You may remember that there were furious complaints after Jan Moir had run her column, following Gately’s death in an apartment he and his partner Andrew Cowles owned in Majorca.

For a complaint to be heard, it has to be lodged by a family member, and one was submitted by Cowles. Bu the PCC has come down in favour of freedom of expression, even though it concedes that there was “flaws” in Moir’s article.

Your humble blogger reluctantly agrees. Reluctantly not because freedom of expression isn’t important, but because we live in an age in which it’s just the done thing to lay into people with seeming impunity in newspaper columns of salacious intent, there just to boost the readership and therefore the profits of the proprietors and shareholders.

Having columns such as Jan Moir’s is the price we sometimes must pay.

But it doesn’t lessen our impression that she’s a bit of a vicious bitch who ought to have been hauled onto the editor’s carpet and given a good dressing down for sheer bad taste – not because one should speak only good of the dead, but because her comments were vicious and unnecessary and calculated to stir up offence.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.

We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.

Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.

Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.