By Gabriel Princewill-
A former chief prosecutor of the Uk has stepped down from the press watchdog’s Complaints Committee, three months ahead of the completion of a full six-year term with Ipso.
Nazir Afzal stepped down from the role with the Independent Press Standards Organisation, where he has been involved with adjudicating on complaints against both regional and national news titles.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The announcement came 24 hours after The Eye Of Media’s investigation into Ipso’s level of impartiality, following the regulator’s dismissal of the complaints of an unscrupulous PR merchant, Paul Blanchard- exposed by The Times for owing the tax man hundreds of thousands of pounds, and being on the receiving end of a number of adverse court judgements.
Mr Afzal, (pictured)who also serves as chancellor of the University of Manchester, had been a prominent member of Ipso’s Complaints Committee; his high credentials adding to the formidability of an already well decorated team.
The announcement of his stepping down came the next day after this publication expressed plans of publishing a dishonesty article against the watchdog’s complaint committee, following an ostensible level of evasiveness to our inquiry seeking to establish why details of a recording stated to provide independent corroboration to refute an account given by bailiffs who attended his address.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Ipso told this publication that it had examined a recording Blanchard claimed to have, but wouldn’t evidence the nature of their examination, nor substantiate its claims that the details of its assessment of the recording were not published for ‘private and confidential reasons’
Following our final request for a statement in writing certifying that Blanchet and The Times were aware of the privacy and confidentiality concerns in question , the regulator’s seeming evasiveness of our inquiry led to a spontaneous decision to suspect a level of dishonesty.
This line was not eventually pursued for lack of want of inadvertently placing Ipso on the same playing field as Blanchet-potentially undermining the noble public interest objective of our inquiry in exploring the extent to which the regulator had exhibited a small level of bias against Blanchard.
In addition to that was the subsequent consideration of not blurring the difference between a suspected dishonesty arising from evasiveness, and a dishonesty of the kind linked with Blanchard’s conduct.
It was subsequently reasoned that Ipso’s perceived transgression of evasiveness was not to be conflated with that of Blanchard, though any omission to retrospectively examine an independent arbiter of facts, such as a recording, was patently deserving of reprimand.
Our collective educated guess was that Mr. Afzal most likely was reacting to the possibility of being bundled with the team tarnished by our potentially damning report, and wanted to be dissociated from. As plausible as the speculation was, it was impossible to definitively ascertain that position.
Analysts believe the highly esteemed legal scholar with years of experience in prosecuting cases, would have on the balance of probability been in favour of exploring the recording, but may not have received the support he wanted from the rest of the team.
Individuals that comprise any professional team often view things from different vantage points, except where the issue at hand is plain obvious.
Also conceivable was the possibility that the prosecutor in Mr. Afzal took the decisive view that a man of Blanchard’s level of misdeeds who had presented tenuous grounds for the complaints he presented, was not deserving of having claims of a recording verified.
More especially, if it was deemed to be inconsequential when viewed as whole.
Yet, the absence of the claimed recording featuring in Ipso’s report was the single give away of an indefensible compromise of the requisite standard of objectivity consistent with the noble expectations of an impartial watchdog. Impartiality calls for an uncompromised fair and competent assessment of complaints, in Ipso’s own words, ”without fear or favour”.
The regulator’s other findings were largely without blemish.
Discredited PR Merchant : Paul Blanchard Image: twitter
Accuracy/Not Significantly Inaccurate
One other complaint raised by Blanchard was the fact The Times had said he claims he will appeal the decision(of the court), which he described as a “journalistic device used to cast doubt on his version of events”.
Ipso said the terminology was not (significantly) inaccurate, but did not state was it also was not accurate.
Its verdict here was in the context of the first clause of The Editors Code Of Practise,
which states that: i) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
This particular clause leaves a middle ground between accuracy and inaccuracy. The terminology ‘claimed’ is conventionally used in the the press to describe a defendant’s version of events in a trial or investigation, where the version of event in question cannot be ascertained, and is the subject of the trial or investigation.
In the instance of a professed plan to lodge an appeal against an adverse court judgement, it is intuitively preferable for the press to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.
A statement voicing a plan to lodge an appeal is immeasurably different from a version of events, making it more accurate to just state what is said, without imputing any connotation that undermine the statement.
Yet, this highly subjective view point was hardly one the regulator may have felt warranted criticism against the Times, potentially leading to it asking for a correction and an apology, if granted as an inaccuracy.
The particular complaint was negligible, and whilst the term was not necessarily used to cast doubt on his version of events, as asserted by Blanchet, the choice of word was unarguably a reflection of cynicism towards a man whose recent track record was not very admirable.
Blanchard eventually did appeal the decision, and unless there were reasonable grounds to doubt he would appeal, the complaint was not totally without merit, but jsut coming from the wrong man.
Credibility
Ipso plays an important role of assessing complaints against the press, and it is important its credibility and integrity in doing so is kept impeccably high.
Proper accountability of the media is more beneficial to the collective media and the public, than it is to the individual complainant.
It is to the benefit of the media to have a body that can provide effective checks and balances to its endeavours, but complaints and that Ipso’s powers of ensuring accountability is relatively weakened because it is funded by the very press it regulates, makes it imperative that it objectively strives to disprove this perception.
It is beyond dispute that having a prosecutor with a legal mind is an asset to any professional team, tempering a prosecuting streak with the highest counter view provides an ideal balance.
The experience of presiding over a university when allied to that of legal expertise is an interesting mix only those who have had close contact with Mr Afal can appreciate.
His eventual exit will leave a gaping hole in the regulator’s complaint’s committee, as they search for a replacement.
Impeccable Standards
The need for impeccable standards as much as possible when regulating the British press cannot be overstated.
The function of a journalist is disseminating fair and factual news that encompasses accountability and responsibility is crucial for the credibility and integrity of the profession.
Journalists and media organisations must be prepared to be held to account in the course of their professional engagements.
In theory, a recording may have revealed the bailiffs account to have been erroneous, presenting the regulator with the duty of addressing that inaccuracy in a measured way.
A negative ruling against The Times in that one aspect may have been incongruous with the rest of Ipso’s assessment of the complaints, but nevertheless would have been strictly principled, and not deserving of an apology from the paper to Blanchard.
Equally, a pursuit of the recording may have confirmed the bailiffs account, or even worse- the recording may not have actually existed!
The Times had been on Blanchard’s tail for over a year, and exposed his reproachable dealings in a series of articles over that time, much to the distaste of the discredited man, who complained to Ipso. Understandably, they could not wait to have him for dinner.
Notwithstanding the disreputable conduct of a complainant to the regulator, most members of the British public believe he professionalism and honourability of the press should always be above board, and put right when it it manifestly falls short of reasonably expected standards.
The public complain to Ipso whenever they feel aggrieved because they need to trust the regulator to judge fairly and competently.
Skipping the claim of a recording shows no regard for the independent power such a claim has.
Judgement
Mr Afzal summed up his experience with Ipso in a statement on twitter, but made no official reference to his concluding term in his statement.
He said : “People are able to share their concerns about breaches of the Editors’ Code, and the Complaints Committee forensically considers them before reaching a detailed judgment.
“Sometimes you think one thing but then hearing the argument put forward by another member, you change your mind.
“On other occasions, the experience you have built up during your career gives you an insight that others welcome.
“You will challenge yourself, take deep dives into the most varied subject matter imaginable and always feel supported by an executive team that ensures you have all the information you will need.”
One can’t help wondering if he changed his mind on the idea of including a recording as part of the team’s forensic consideration into Blanchard’s complaints, or whether as a prosecutor he considered most of the evidence against Blanchard so overwhelming that the one potentially decisive piece of evidence was relatively irrelevant.
Ipso told The Eye Of Media.Com that the timing of his stepping down was purely co-incidental with our investigation, which it said had no bearing with it.
Ipso said in a comment about the recording: “The complaint was fully examined by IPSO and the claims regarding the recordings were investigated.”
In relation to the coincidence of Mr Afzal stepping down, he said that: ”We are advertising for replacements for both of the committee members whose terms are ending. That is the coincidence”.
The Eye Of Media was unable to confirm whether the recording was examined or even existed.
The Times editorial and Ben Ellery, the authour of the story on Blanchard, were contacted as part of the examination into this matter.
The Times editorial said it was aware of its story on Blanchard, but had no recollection on the full details of Ipso’s ruling. Mr Ellery himself did not respond to questions from this about the recording in question.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar