AddThis SmartLayers

Council went to IPSO after news site contacted councillors instead of press office

A local council complained to the press watchdog after a news website approached councillors for comment on a story instead of its communications team.

Rochdale Borough Council complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about a story on councillors’ expenses run by Rochdale Online.

But, after IPSO found in favour of the site, the council took its case to the Independent Complaints Reviewer over the watchdog’s handling of the complaint.

The ICR also dismissed the authority’s claims, deciding that the process was not flawed and rejecting a request for review.

Rochdale Town Hall

Rochdale Town Hall

The council claimed Rochdale Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a story reporting that a Freedom of Information request had shown councillors’ allowances now totalled £75,000 a month, or £900,000 per year, and would total over £1 million once National Insurance contributions were added.

The authority said the predicted spend on allowances for 2017/18 was £883,000, rather than what was reported.

It also raised concern that Rochdale Online had approached several councillors for comment, but had not put its claims to the council’s communications team.

Denying a breach of Code, Rochdale Online supplied IPSO with a copy of the response to its FoI request, which showed that Councillor Allowances in February 2018 totalled £75,009.53.

It said that extrapolating this for 12 months, it gave a figure of just over £900,000 which, with national insurance contributions included, would cost more than £1m.

The site added requests for comment were sent directly to the councillors concerned, as it was a political point about the specific action of these councillors and it was not appropriate or necessary, in these circumstances, to contact the communications department for comment.

IPSO found there was no basis for Rochdale Online to believe the monthly figures given were not representative of average spend, and there was no subsequent requirement on the publication to approach the council’s communication team for comment.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

12 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • July 17, 2018 at 8:32 am
    Permalink

    Sadly, this is reflective of the arrogance of so many public authority press offices. There are some who are still good to work with but they are in the minority. Most are drunk on power and self-importance.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(30)
  • July 17, 2018 at 9:25 am
    Permalink

    by passing press offices is always a good idea. But I fear nowadays councillors are trained to refer hacks to press officers. in the “good old days” you could always get a good quote direct from a councillor. (same applied to local cops ). This complaint was ridiculous and deserved to be thrown out.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(30)
  • July 17, 2018 at 9:27 am
    Permalink

    Approach a councillor for a comment and the reply frequently received is: ring the council.

    Whatever happened to democratic accountability?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(24)
  • July 17, 2018 at 9:42 am
    Permalink

    I was conflicted reading this. I wouldn’t be cowed for a millisecond by any council press office, and nor should any journo, but I think I would be inclined to make the call on this particular story as a courtesy, and good journalistic practice, since it amounts to a corporate policy issue. This would be in addition to thoroughly monstering the councillors themselves first, however, because they are absolutely accountable on the matter in hand – they can choose for themselves whether to respond or not.
    Interestingly, the IPSO ruling says that the Council had indeed provided a statement to the publication, but adds that it was not used – this looks like a bit of sloppy practice. It does not undermine a story to simply carry a rebuttal of claims/allegations, in as much or as little detail as is needed.
    OMG – have I gone over to the dark side? I must go and lie down.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(19)
  • July 17, 2018 at 10:30 am
    Permalink

    Kevin Duffy…

    Please read the article, there was no “sloppy practice”, the council comment was used even though it was disingenuous to say the least:

    https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/117236/councillors%E2%80%99-allowances-will-top-one-million

    This was simply the latest in a long line of the council press office seeking to be obstructive and to obfuscate.

    When attempts to intimidate via email and telephone did not work the complaint was made to IPSO. When IPSO rejected the complaint the council press office still persisted and went to review and that as rejected.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(15)
  • July 17, 2018 at 10:43 am
    Permalink

    Doesn’t help that a fair few of the PR wallahs in council wastelands are poachers-turned-gatekeepers.
    Class will discuss…………

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(16)
  • July 17, 2018 at 1:02 pm
    Permalink

    RO – thanks for the link to the original excellent story and, yes, I can see that the council comment is indeed there – I should have read the story first.
    But I’m still curious about what prompted the line in para 4 of the IPSO report: “….and the Council had provided a statement to the publication. The Council said that omitting this statement from the article was misleading, as the Council should have been given a right to reply to these claims.” Does it refer to some other statement?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • July 17, 2018 at 1:40 pm
    Permalink

    Having worked on both sides of the fence, I understand the concerns of the press office but not the official complaint.

    When the press ask for comment on any issue, there may be a degree of mitigation or explanation that the council leaders want to get across so, naturally, the press office help to shape that message.

    When councillors go off and do their own thing, it can cause a nightmare for the press office in terms of misinformation or consistency but, as politically-elected representatives, councillors are entitled to talk to whomever they wish.

    It is certainly not for the press office to complain about this. They simply need to ask council leaders to take it up with their members and/or peers.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • July 17, 2018 at 4:09 pm
    Permalink

    @Oliver – agree. I ran the then 20-strong press and public relations office at the NFU head office in London in the 1990s and while most inquiries came thru us some journos wld obviously go direct to their contacts in the various depts. While there were those higher up who did not like this I had to point out that it cld not be stopped however much we tried. However, it did cause problems if an individual farmer member or official got his/her facts wrong – and guess who had to sort that out? Why, the press office, of course.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • July 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm
    Permalink

    Kevin..

    The council comment was not initially included for the reasons stated but subsequently added to try and placate the council press office – so why this formed part of their complaint is a question only they can answer.

    We would suggest reading the following for context:

    http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/106856/councillors-allowances-the-supporting-evidence-is-debatable

    http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/106814/argument-for-increasing-councillors-allowances-rejected-by-previous-independent-remuneration-panel

    http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/106924/shouts-of-%E2%80%98disgraceful%E2%80%99-as-councillors-vote-themselves-a-massive-34pc-increase

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • July 21, 2018 at 12:36 pm
    Permalink

    Councillors are always twitchy when they are shown up with their noses in the trough.
    They want to be seen as paragons of public service but hate it when you mention the jubbly.
    There are some honourable exceptions but most of them are in it for themselves, their exaggerated sense of their own importance – and the money.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)