By Gabriel Princewill-
Press regulator IPSO, has been presented with more pressure by the CEO of an unknown organisation called ”ageing better”, calling for it to address alleged ageism in the British media.
Carole Easton says the provision relating to discrimination in Clause 12 of the regulator ‘s code ignores a perpetual problem relating to ageism in the media, something she believes needs to be addressed.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
She makes reference to IPSO’s ruling last month in relation the controversial Jeremy Clarkson article publish in The Sun newspaper early this year in January, in which the television presenter expressed his wish to see Meghan Markle paraded in the streets naked, with the public shouted shame on her and throwing excrements on her.
IPSO, ruled the article sexist, the first its kind among its many rulings, and just the third relating to discrimination.
The ruling was welcomed by The Fawcett Society , whose complaint formed the basis of the regulator’s examination, but sparked uproar among some members of the media, albeit it on untenable grounds.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Frazer Nelson, editor of The Spectator, led the complaints against the regulator’s ruling, accusing the media funded watchdog of bowing to pressure from activists, as well as alleging collusion with the women’s society group, which he rather insolently described as ”obscure”.
In a passionately written article, Mr Nelson rebuked the regulator for breaching its charter, adding that opinions have not been regulated in the UK for 300 years. He asserted the view that no politician or group has the power or right to complain about opinions, and correctly pointed to the fact that Ipso’s code does not accept complaints from third parties.
quoting from the regulator’s code that : ”Our regulations do not allow us to take forward complaints about issues other than accuracy from third parties, with no connection to the alleged breach of the Code”.
So why did Ipso on this occasion accept third party complaints? It made an exception, no doubt, in consistence with the principle of flexibility. The problem for dissenters of Ipso’s stance is how any more exceptions could possibly arise in future.
Nelson’s protest was delivered with much conviction, and research conducted by The Eye Of Media s far on the matter suggests that more members of the British public than not, agree with him, though it doesn’t make either right on the matter. Closer scrutiny and assessment on the contentious issue is required.
Now, Ms Eaton is questioning the fundamental legitimacy of IPSO’s code with regard its wholesomeness under the segment embodying discrimination in its clause. She points out the fact that older people belong to a protected characteristic, and therefore ought to be afforded similar rights as black people and women.
Her query is not without any validity, though may be reasonably considered to unduly broad in the depth of areas she hopes the regulator to cover.
Ipso can’t adopt her recommendations so quickly, they will be accused of bowing to an ”online mob” again, to coin a phrase from Mr, Nelson.
The validity of her complaints will be the subject of careful examination. One section of her complaint makes reference to comments in the media about the expected competence of Joe Biden as U.S president, given his advanced age of 80.
Many ordinary fair minded people will consider such reference by the media to be reasonable and practical, not ageist.
Ageism, is the prejudice or discrimination based on age, is an important issue that affects individuals of all generations, yet there remains a question of whether oversensitivity may at times creep in to the extent of amounting to unjustified censoring of the press.
The Equality Act 2010 recognizes age as one of the protected characteristics, alongside race, colour, and religion.
Ageism is currently omitted from the Editors’ Code of Conduct, which governs journalistic standards in the UK. This omission has the potential of sparking a legitimate debate about whether ageism in the press should fall under discrimination and be included in the code.
The Omission of Ageism in the Editors’ Code
The Editors’ Code of Practice, administered by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), sets the standards that newspapers and magazines in the UK are expected to adhere to. The code covers issues such as accuracy, privacy, harassment, and discrimination, and includes protected characteristics like race, gender, religion, and disability.
The complaint that ageism in the press should be considered discrimination under IPSO’s code is worth analysing.
Age is explicitly recognized as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination based on age is unlawful in various areas, including employment, education, and the provision of goods and services. Recognizing ageism in the press as a form of discrimination aligns with the legal framework.
Including ageism in the code would set clear guidelines for journalists and editors, promoting fair and unbiased reporting on age-related issues. It would encourage more responsible and sensitive coverage, reducing the risk of perpetuating stereotypes or stigmatizing older individuals.
Yet, there are a number of factors that make the query contentious .
Accepting Ms Easton arguments could mean journalists cannot pass fair comment or pessimism athlete in his late 40’s participating in a 100 metres race filled with young people, or one attempting to commence a professional boxing career in the heavyweight division, where advance age is generally a disadvantage, notwithstanding the exception to every rule that exist in life.
Critics of the idea will easily argue that including ageism in the code will be tantamount to over policing the press, and invariably hampering free speech in an unjustified manner.
Age-related matters can be subjective and open to interpretation. What one person perceives as ageism might be seen as a legitimate concern by another. Determining when ageism occurs in reporting can be challenging, leading to potential conflicts over journalistic freedom.
Reporting on politicians or public figures may involve discussions about their suitability for leadership roles, which may include their age.
Many people believe that age in this context, might be relevant to assess the individual’s ability to perform their duties effectively. Striking a balance between age sensitivity and legitimate public interest can be complicated.
Examples Of Ageism Complaints
Citing a number of examples in her article published in the Press Gazette, Carole Easton made reference to an article about grouping “boomers” as greedy individuals flourishing at other generations’ expense is a valid concern. This generalization perpetuates negative stereotypes based on age and lacks nuance.
While legitimate concerns about a politician’s suitability may involve discussing their age, equating age with bumbling incompetence and fragility is controversial. problematic.
It is a topic worth exploring in full.
IPSO and The Centre For Ageing better were contacted for comment.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar