Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond took Scotland’s best-selling regional daily to the Press Complaints Commission over a leader column on windfarms.

The politician took issue with an editorial comment in the Press and Journal which referred to a comment from his office saying the Scottish government would not be distracted by any amount of “noise or foot stamping” on the wind turbines issue.

Alexander Anderson complained on Mr Salmond’s behalf that the article broke Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which covers accuracy.

The newspaper denied any breach of the code and said the leader had appeared on the same day as news coverage that had provided the context of the remarks.

However in order to resolve the matter, the P&J agreed to publish a clarification in the following terms:

An editorial comment on October 11 in the Press and Journal referred to a comment from First Minister Alex Salmond’s office on windfarm policy. It stated that they would not be distracted by any amount of “noise or foot stamping”. The first minister’s office has asked us to point out that the comment was made solely in response to criticism of a project in Aberdeen Bay by the Trump Organisation and did not relate to complaints about other wind turbine projects by members of the general public.

Other recently resolved PCC cases involving regional newspapers include:

Purcell v Daily Record

Mr Steven Purcell complained under Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 3 (Privacy) bout an article which was, in his view, inaccurate and intrusive.  It reported that he had collapsed with ‘suspected liver failure’ which the complainant said was not the case. He also objected to the newspaper reporting on matters relating to his health, which he considered to be a private matter.

The newspaper was eager to maintain good relations with the complainant, and the PCC was able to negotiate the removal of the online article, and the publication of the following statement as a gesture of goodwill:

On November 8, we incorrectly stated that former Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell had been taken to hospital with suspected liver failure. We would like to make clear that he was not suffering from liver failure and we apologise for this error and for publishing his medical condition without his consent.

Gale v Western Daily Press

Mr Chris Gale complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about an article which commented on the ban on hunting with dogs. In particular, he was concerned that the article had inaccurately stated that majority of people in the countryside supported hunting.

The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification:

In an essay on the Western Daily Press opinion page on January 1, it was stated that “In the English countryside, where the Tories are by far the strongest party, a majority of people of all classes are in favour of hunting”. However, opinion polls show that, typically, public opinion in the countryside is in favour of the hunting ban. We are happy to point out this fact.

A woman v Daily Record

A woman complained under Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) that the newspaper had published an article which, in her view, failed to pay regard to the vulnerable position of her teenage daughter as a witness to a crime.

The newspaper did not accept that a breach of the Code had occurred as, in its opinion, the article did not contain sufficient information to identify the child. However, it acknowledged the complainant concerns and wrote privately to her. Additionally, as a gesture of goodwill, the newspaper removed the online version of the article.

Long v Chelmsford Weekly News

Miss Tracie Long complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) about an article which reported on an investigation by the Spiritual Workers Association into allegations made against her by a former client.

The matter was resolved when the newspaper gave an undertaking to report on court proceedings which had subsequently been issued against the complainant’s former client, and an assurance that – subject to the outcome of the trial – it would conduct an interview with her.

Williams v Stratford-upon-Avon Herald

Mr Anthony Williams complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about an article which had incorporated comments he had made on a social network, and which was published without his consent.

The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following apology:

An article on Page 3 of the Midweek Herald of 1st of January about an elderly missing man in Alveston included comments made by local resident Anthony Williams on his Facebook page. The newspaper accepts that these comments were intended to be seen only by Mr Williams’ Facebook friends and the inclusion of them in the article constituted a breach of his privacy and a breach of the Press Complaints Commission’s code of practice. We sincerely apologise to Mr Williams for our mistake.

Griffiths v Wales Online

Mr Bedwyr Griffiths complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about an article which was, in his view, inaccurate and misleading.  It reported on a number of allegations which had been made online, by parents who claimed that their children had been ‘punished for speaking English’.  Mr Griffiths said the claims in question were unsubstantiated and he objected to their being publicised by the newspaper.

While the newspaper was not of the view that its article was inaccurate, the complaint was resolved after the publication of a follow up article.

Hertfordshire Constabulary v Hertfordshire Mercury

Hertfordshire Constabulary complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about an article containing a quotation which had been inaccurately attributed to a police spokesperson.

The complaint was resolved following a private meeting between the parties.

A man and a woman v Sunday World

Kevin R Winters & Co Solicitors complained under Clauses 1 (Accuracy), 3 (Privacy), and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) about an article which was, in their clients’ view, intrusive, inaccurate and insensitive.  It reported on the death of the complainants’ son and they felt the article headline was gratuitous and insensitive, a position with which the newspaper did not agree. The complainants also objected to the use of the word ‘tortured’, to describe the mental health status of their late son.

The newspaper was eager to address the complainants’ concerns, and the complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated a letter of regret from the newspaper for any distress which the complainants had experienced as a result of its article.

Bailey v Irish News

Dr Mark Bailey complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) on behalf of the Green Party of Northern Ireland over an article he claimed was inaccurate and misleading.  The article was a comment piece about the Green Party, and the complainant objected to the claim that ‘two councillors left the party, one to join the SDLP and the other to join Sinn Fein’.

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of a letter from the complainant.