AddThis SmartLayers

Bid to censure paper over hunting row fails

A letters page row which ended with the Press Complaints Commission did not break any terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The original complaint from the Countryside Alliance was that a reader’s letter on the subject of hunting, published in the Western Daily Press, was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 on accuracy.

It wanted the paper censured for its attitude and opinion pieces which followed.

The articles had called for the resignation of Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart – accusing him of trying to “bully” the paper into not printing readers’ views against hunting.

But the result vindicates editor Terry Manners’ stance on the group and its methods.

The WDP had printed a letter from Mr Hart saying the paper was in breach of the PCC Code of Practice because it had published a reader’s letter which he claimed was “inaccurate, misleading and distorted”.

The paper originally responded to Mr Hart’s letter saying it had done nothing wrong and that readers were entitled to their own opinion.

And the Commission was happy that the newspaper’s offer to publish a letter of response from the complainant was sufficient in the circumstances. Following the offer of remedial action on the part of the newspaper, the watchdog group did not consider there were any further issues to pursue.

The original reader letter, headlined “Hooligans on horseback take note”, was published in the Western Daily Press on August 5.

Tim Bonner, on behalf of the Alliance, claimed that the letter about hunting was inaccurate and in breach of the code.

He made it clear that the Countryside Alliance fully accepted the right of newspapers to publish different views, and emphasised that its concerns rested only with the publication of inaccurate information which could have been confirmed as such with little research.

The newspaper then published a letter from Simon Hart, which made clear that the description was inaccurate and which called on the newspaper to apologise. A note was added from the editor which said the writer of the first letter was entitled to his opinion and that no apology would be given.

The newspaper also pointed out that the letter, which contained the alleged inaccuracy, may have drawn on a previously published letter. This had described a “hind hunt” as “a particularly abhorrent practice whereby hounds chase down an often heavily pregnant deer”.

The Commission thought this was a proportionate and appropriate response to an allegation that a reader’s letter had contained an inaccuracy, and it would not normally expect a newspaper to apologise for an inaccuracy that was contained in a letter submitted by a third party – but to take steps to put the record straight if such a mistake came to light. That had happened in this case, and no further action was required on this point.

The complainant made a second complaint about an editorial in the newspaper which he said inaccurately described the Alliance’s conduct when making the first complaint. He said it was untrue they had used “bully boy tactics” to try to “gag” the newspaper by using “threats”.

He said the newspaper’s claims that the Alliance had tried to “stop us publishing views you do not agree with” and that “we hear from your organisation that everything we print from your opponents is lies and distortion” were also untrue.

Regarding the complainant’s second point, the newspaper said that this description expressed its own opinion of the organisation’s conduct – and made clear that it felt that the Alliance was trying to “browbeat” it.

But for the complainant, it raised further concerns that an editorial headlined “It is time to quit, Mr Hart”, published in the same newspaper on August 10, was also inaccurate.

On this point, the Commission said it strongly discouraged editors from criticising people who wish to make complaints to the PCC, something that is not within the spirit of the Code. One of the key advantages of the system of self-regulation was that it was deliberately not adversarial.

The Commission believed that while the editor’s reaction might have been somewhat disproportionate, there was no particular merit in censuring him for publishing his robust view about the complainant’s motives in complaining. It also took account of the fact that the complainant represented an organisation with a particular point of view to promote, and was not a member of the public.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index