By Gabriel Princewill-
The Independent Press Regulator, Ipso, has declined to investigate The Daily Express Online for publishing a fabricated article about Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and Prince William. and refusing to pull down the article.
After we caught the online publication in March publishing an article with fabricated details about the royals which appeared to reinforce any pre-existing tension between Prince Harry, and Prince William, placing Meghan at the centre of it, we pursued an investigation to examine its motives.
The publication tripped at the first hurdle as it became clear they had been caught falsifying quotes that were detrimental to the interest of the parties in question. In fairness, the transgression itself does not necessarily reflect on the publication, since it could have been the sole doing of the culpable journalist who wrote the article and presented it for publication.
Where the publication failed in its moral obligations was to rectify the woeful and reprehensible conduct, unbefitting of a national media news outlet. After months of internal discussions and reflection and after we politely and respectfully asked them to take the corrupt article offline, which is the honourable to do when a corrupt article has been detected.
As a gesture of goodwill, the Daily Mail Online was told that we would not reveal their decision to comply with our requests in order to demonstrate the honourable motive of our objective. We explained to both their editors and lawyers that our overarching purpose was to legitimately hold them to account for the erroneous article, without making them feel humiliated. They declined, so drama ensued.
THE CORRUPT ARTICLE
The article published on March 27th, 2019, featured the supposed views of a professional relationship expert, Sheila Mackintosh. Ms Mackintosh was quoted to have said that Prince Harry no longer needed his brother’s ‘constant support’, now he has Meghan who is his rock.
IMPLICATIONS
Surprised that a relationship expert would not understand the implications of the comments, we contacted her for an elaboration of her words. However, Ms Mackintosh flatly denied the comments, saying she did not say that at all. When asked why she did not complain, she replied, ”I did, but do I want to take on The Daily Express”?
Editors of the Daily Express Online distanced themselves from the fake publication and promised to get the writer of the piece to call to justify the contents of the article. Unsurprisingly, no call was ever made by the writer, Abbie Llwelyn- an overnight reporter who joined The Daily Express Online in 2018.
When editors of the publication were asked to pull the article down they said it was their protocol for us to discuss it with their lawyers.
However, their lawyer said we should report it to Ipso to ”make sure it is all above board”. The press regulator declined to investigate the allegation of the corrupt or ‘fake news’, stating that there was no way they could establish exactly what Ms Mackintosh had told the journalist, and adding that it would be unfair to publish a finding without her consent.
Ipso was told that their reasoning was flagrantly flawed because it was their duty to investigate and confirm an allegation we had made after proper investigation. After all, Ipso imposes a duty on journalists to promptly correct any inaccuracies
IPSO’s COMMITTEE
The press regulator, which investigates complaints made against the press by the public then referred us to Ipso’s Committee, stating that it would take them 2-3 weeks to review our complaint. Our complaint was first made on the 9th of September, and referred to their Committee on the 23rd of September. They responded on Wednesday night- 6 weeks later. No explanation was given for taken twice as long as expected
Their response read:
”The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email of 9 September 2019 from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code, and your email of 10 September 2019 requesting a review of the Executive’s decision, as well as all other relevant correspondence. The Committee agreed the following decision:
The Committee agreed with the decision of IPSO’s Executive in their email of 9 September 2019. You were not in a position to demonstrate that Ms Mackintosh had been misquoted, or to provide the relevant information regarding exactly what she had said to the journalist.
Therefore the Committee agreed that you were a third party to this alleged inaccuracy and that it would not be possible or appropriate to consider your complaint further.
”To be clear this does not affect Ms Mackintosh’s ability to complain to IPSO about this matter nor someone with her written authorisation.
For this reason, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee declined to pursue your complaint. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.
The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns”.
The issue of being a third party complainant was initially addressed by a member of Ipso’s Executive on the 9th of September. An excerpt of the response pertinent to the issue of third parties read:
”IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy.
In the case of third party complaints, we do need to consider the position of the party most closely involved.
”In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Ms Mackintosh and the statements she has made on the relationship between various members of the Royal Family. In order to make a decision as to whether the Code was breached, it appears IPSO may need to make findings on exactly what Ms Mackintosh had said to the publication regarding this matter.
To do this, we would require the involvement of an individual with first-hand knowledge of what Ms Mackintosh had said and what views she had expressed on the relationship between various members of the Royal Family”
WHITEWASH
This response is called a ‘whitewash’. The Committee was always going to defend their colleagues, despite them supposedly being independent from the initial complaint process. Ipso’s committee make reference to being a third party in a prohibitive context, whilst their executive a few weeks earlier explicitly confirmed the regulator investigate third party complaints.
Put bluntly, the regulator have tried to circumvent the essence of their own code, which is to dutifully address inaccuracies published in the press.
The Eye Of Media.Com has kept close eyes on Ipso for a while, and confirm that their handling and assessment’s of complaints are usually evaluated professionally, competently, and objectively.
Victims Of False Publication: Prince Harry And Meghan Markle
On this occasion, Ipso has falling short of what is reasonably expected of them, which is to hold the press to account for publishing false or inaccurate information.
Under Ipso’s ‘Mission’ and ‘Values’ section, the press regulator pledges to uphold the highest professional standards in the UK press, determine whether standards have been breached, and provide redress if so.
COMMITMENT
This position is further bolstered by their purported commitment made under their section entitled ‘Values’ , in which Ipso also says it would act ”without fear or favour”. However, It looks more like we are the ones upholding those values in their entirety.
Further examination of this failing will be the subject of internal and external discussions, most importantly to explore what this may tells us about why they failed to fulfil the spirit of their remit, and its potential ramifications or implications in future similar cases.