AddThis SmartLayers

Press watchdog backs paper that labelled PR man a 'spin doctor'

A council press officer who objected to his local paper labelling him a “spin doctor” has had his complaint thrown out by the press watchdog.

The Bridlington Free Press was told by the Press Complaints Commission that Simon Taylor, who is head of communications and public relations at the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, has no grounds to object.

He wrote to the commission after the Free Press reported the recommendation to regrade his post from £45,000 to £55,000 a year, a rise of 20 per cent.

He claimed a quote in the report comparing the regrading of his post to the pay rise being sought by local government employees had misinformed and misled readers by misrepresenting the facts.

And he said the review of his job, and the issue between the trade unions and the national employers’ organisation were totally separate matters.

The officer claimed the Free Press had misled the public, had not respected his right to privacy over the matter and defamed his character by using the term “spin doctor”.

But the Bridlington Free Press was vindicated by the press watchdog, which decided the article was not misleading, and found no great discrepancy between the term “spin doctor”, as used in the headline, and the title of his actual position.

There was no intrusion on his privacy because of the public nature of his work.

Free Press editor Selwyn Dunford, said: “We will always report what we believe people have a right to know. That is what a free press is all about. In this instance, our readers had every right to be informed of the recommendation to regrade a public post and a councillor’s reaction to it.

“The information was presented to them faithfully and without disrespect to anyone.

“It is no surprise that the Press Complaints Commission vindicated us.”

The Press Complaints Commission’s findings forwarded to both Mr Taylor and the Free Press were:

“In reference to Clause 1 (Accuracy), the commission did not believe the article to be misleading for mentioning the proportionate salary increase to be expected by other council workers. The commission emphasised that newspapers are entitled to publish partisan opinion so long as it is clearly distinguished from fact.

“In this case it noted that any implicit connection made between the variations in salary scales were clearly cited as the comments of Councillor Ray Allerston.

“The commission did not see any great discrepancy between the term “spin doctor” (used in the headline), and the name of the position held by Mr Taylor, given the fact that his job had a public relations focus. The commission takes the view that headlines should always be read in conjunction with the attached article.

“In this case your formal job title was included in the text, ‘head of communications and public relations’. Because the article clarified the reference in the headline, the commission concluded that there was no misrepresentation and therefore no breach of the Code had been established on this point.

“In reference to Clause 3 (Privacy), the commission noted that the naming of the individual presently holding the position under discussion in the article was appropriate and did not constitute an intrusion into privacy given the public nature of your employment. Consequently it concluded that there had been no breach of Clause 3 (Privacy).”

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index