By Gabriel Princewill-
Ipso’s decision to clear The Times newspaper fully against an allegation of inaccurate reporting is under scrutiny, after aspects of the ruling was flagged up for this publication to thoroughly assess.
The complaint made by a discredited PR boss, Paul Blanchard, was lacking in merit in every respect, but one element of the complaint which was potentially verifiable due independent evidence he said was in his possession was never accounted for in the regulator’s comprehensive assessment of the complaint.
The case was presented to a member of The Eye Of Media.Com’s thinktank for special scrutiny, following arguments that the regulator’s decision failed to take into account every aspect of the complaint thoroughly, in the process compromising its remit of ensuring accountability with the press.
Ipso dismissed Blanchard’s complaints in April of how the Times reported a court case with an adverse ruling against him, but made no reference to the CCTV recording the shamed PR boss said would refute its report of bailiff’s account that he had rushed out of a bath top to lock the doors upon their arrival.
Critics insist Ipso ought to have sought to ascertain why the Times did not ask for CCTV evidence which the disgraced PR Merchant had said he was in possession of to disprove accounts from bailiffs that Blanchard had tried to evade them by coming out a tub and locking the door.
They say his claims to have had a recording of what occurred when bailiffs arrived at his home were ignored and overlooked, at the expense of fully holding the Times to account on that aspect of his complaints.
Blanchard had said he was in the hot tub for medical reasons and was in no position to ‘jump out’ of the hot tub as stated by the Times who was featuring the bailiffs account of what occurred when they arrived t his home.
The discredited PR boss said that contrary to the article’s claim, he had spoken calmly with the bailiff outside his house and made no attempt to re-enter the house or lock the door. He said he had home security footage that he would have been able to provide to the publication that would prove this.”
Blanchard made another complaint that was of interest to us.
He said the Times reported that he ‘claimed’ he would appeal rather than accurately saying he said he would appeal. The essence of this complaint was that the paper undermined his statement, rather than factually stating what he had said.
The objective question was whether the paper erred in its choice of words.
Opinions in this area is currently split, and as minor as it seems, we plan to consult wider for greater insight into it.
The regulator said this was not significantly inaccurate in consistence with its code, raising the issue of whether this was fair or not.
IPSO concluded, that The Times was entitled to base the article on the bailiff’s report, making no reference to the supposedly decisive recording Blanchard claimed to have.
Our investigating team was divided as to whether the highlighted issue of the omitted recording was worthy of examination. Those in favour pointed to the claim of a recording as a vital part of any investigation, its exclusion from consideration potentially calling into question the competence and integrity of a regulator that overlooks such a claim.
A number of professionals evaluating the matter espoused the view that Blanchard’s indiscretions and disreputable modus operandi in the working environment effectively denies him of any right to empathy by one considering his complaints. Others disagreed, arguing that accurate and fir reporting must always be independent of the character of the subjects of their articles.
Regulation of the press is predominantly about competence and integrity, with a holistic outlook expected when evaluating a particular story.
Press Reputation
The media has long had a poor reputation with the public when it comes to accurate and fair reporting, one of the reasons it is important for the media to be as impeccable as possible when reporting stories in the press.
The press regulator has been accused in some quarters of not being as independent and impartial as it purports to be in some of its rulings, with critics alleging that the media watchdog which is collectively financed by the British press, is caught up by the notion of regulation capture. Regulation capture describes a situation in which the regulator’s interest is dominated by the interests it is supposed to be regulating , rather than those of the public interest.
Most of Ipso’s former rulings relating to complaints from the public have passed the test of competence and integrity on the many occasions we have examined them, but we have not examined all of them.
However, the regulator have been found wanting on one or two occasions when complaints have been presented to them for examination.
The five principles of good regulation are transparency, consistence, proportionality. targeting. and accountability.
Above Board
Ipso insists its assessment was above board, and that it properly examined Blanchard’s complaints, without any prejudice in favour of the Times.
However, it has not been fully transparent in this particular investigation since it has not substantiated its claim to have examined the recordings in this case.
It declined to provide evidence to The Eye Of Media to support its claim to have investigated recordings Blanchard said he had to dispute the plausible accounts of the bailiffs that he had rushed out of a bath tub to lock the door when bailiffs arrived at his property.
The Times is a well established news publication with an estimate 400,000 subscribers, and is ranked the sixth highest trusted outlet out of 13 different outlets polled. Its Digital Archive is also available by subscription.
Its generally established credibility will rarely ever be called into question, but like every other organisation, the Times is not necessarily immune to potential shortcomings in its publication of news.
Curious
The complaints by Blanchard against the Times were amusingly curious, first and foremost because of his own obvious legal infringements, and the fact he was convicted of evading taxes and also ill treating his own employees.
His expressed grievance with the accuracy of the paper’s report, generally lacked credence, most observers predominantly concluding that the disgraced PR Merchant was generally clawing at straws.
The primary question was whether the Times had unfairly misrepresented Blanchard in their article when viewed as a whole. The answer was an unequivocal no. Yet, there remained a fair question of whether the publication had confirmed the accuracy of the bailiffs account of what took place at his resident when they arrived.
That aspect, though relatively negligible in the context of the big picture only becomes relevant because of the big E- evidence.
A recording, especially one that is visual, is often the best that an investigator can have when probing claims. Leaving this out of the published investigation is problematic to the perceived integrity of Ipso in this particular case.
It would have demonstrated optimum attention to detail by the regulator, and shown it was leaving no room for any possible legitimate allegation of bias or negligence in its investigation.
Confirmation of what transpired when the bailiffs arrived would have been available for incontrovertible evidence, or a most unforeseen scenario could have emerged in which a recording may not even have existed at all, and further exposed Blanchard as a lair.
More pertinent to the regulator, was whether it dispassionately assessed every aspect of his complaint, or exhibited a level of bias because of Blanchard’s already tarnished image.
Blanchard had been given ample time to make his case, but the one big claim of the existence of a recording to disprove one small aspect of the article that ridiculed and exposed an account of when bailiffs came to his property to seize his goods, mysteriously ended with no further word about it. That has to be disappointing by any standards.
Objections
Blanchard’s objections to the articles centred around claims made by The Times that he was facing financial difficulties and had been forced to liquidate his PR company. He argued that the articles were inaccurate and misleading, and that they had damaged his reputation and business.
IPSO found that the articles were based on accurate information and did not breach any ethical standards.
The regulator rightly concluded that the paper was entitled to report the account of the bailiffs, but the fact neither the paper nor the regulator appear to have probed his claims that he had recordings to prove the account of the bailiffs were flawed has attracted our interest.
After giving Blanchard 24 hours to respond to their inquiry, The Times stated that he strongly disputed the claims, but at no point sought to independently examine the recordings Blanchard claimed to have.
The PR Merchant was a discredited man with no legs to stand on, but the issue of why the recordings were not explored has led to the view that the Times were not being pulled up on the reason they did not seek the recordings to establish whether indeed the bailiff’s account was accurate.
One argument presented is that the Times had already stated that Blanchard has strenuously denied the claims, and it was for the shamed PR boss to provide the recordings he claimed to have , even if done later. The second point was why the Times did not ask for the recording after the published article , in order to consolidate its story and further shame Blanchard, if caught lying.
Discussing the matter with three members of our thinktank happy to go on record on the matter, researcher and Teacher John Dhumbra , assessing, said: ”I can see why the regulator may not have explored the recording he claimed to have, because he appeared to be clawing at straws. Most of his excuses were easily disproven, but not examining a recording would be a catastrophic error in an investigation where a recording is said to exist.
”Ignoring a recording during an investigation cannot be justified under any circumstances . This, if factual, was a compromised standard in itself, even if the recording would have proved nothing significant. It definitely should have been examined, and would amount to an oversight if it was left out”.
IT consultant , Stephen Oke, had different view. He said :”The Times didn’t believe him, so didn’t bother to check, said Steve Oke, an IT Consultant in East London. He is a crook, and that’s why they couldn’t be bothered to feature his view.
Providing an initial assessment, PR analyst Abbi Hoxleigh said:” I think the fact the Times had already been trailing Blanchard, because they were aware of his misdeeds, and he was stalling, and was already discredited , Ipso may have judged him by his past behaviour. Its a natural thing to do, to have a reading on someone, but not saying it is the correct thing to do, but he has lost credibility in their eyes”
Ben Ellery, the journalist for the Times, had been investigating Mr. Blanchard and covering him for a year. The Times had written three articles about him, and there was one about him being antisemetic, so I think the general view was that he was not a very pleasant man
When challenged about the one major concerns in relation to Ipso’s investigation two days ago on Wednesday, Ipso said in a statement to this publication: “The complaint was fully examined by IPSO and the claims regarding the recordings were investigated.”
The regulator said it was not prepared to go into the details of the confidentiality, and when asked to at least provide a statement to the effect that both Blanchard and The Times were aware of the privacy concerns in question, it declined to do so.
Our assessment of this matter continues, with more insights and extrapolations very likely.