This entry was posted on
Monday, January 25th, 2010
8:34 am and is filed
under Old Media.

Quite inexplicably, the good people from ipetitions.com refuse to hand over the data we collected via their site prior to the sudden disappearance of our petition. I take this as a pretty good sign that they have somehow (for unknown reasons) deleted this data and are afraid to admit it, but that’s a matter for later.

This week, and today especially, we need to focus our efforts on submitting the following five suggestions (and anything you would care to add) to the following email addresses. YOU WILL NEED TO DO THIS EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY VOICED YOUR SUPPORT VIA THE PETITION.

Vivien Hepworth, Chairman, (PCC) Independent Governance Review:

[Deadline: 25 January, i.e. today]
[deadline has passed for these submissions]

Ian Beales, Code Committee Secretary, Editor’s Code of Practive Committee:

[Deadline: 31 January]
[deadline has passed for these submissions]

Please note that Independent Governance Review requires you to notify them if you do not wish your submission to be made public.

Here are the suggestions we are asking you to endorse (and add to, if you wish):

SUGGESTION ONE: Like-for-like placement of retractions, corrections and apologies in print and online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies should normally be at least equally prominent to the original article, in both print and online editions. Any departure from this rule should only be in exceptional circumstances, and the onus on showing such circumstances should be on the publication.

SUGGESTION TWO: Original or redirected URLs for retractions, corrections & apologies online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies in respect of online articles should always be displayed either at the original URL or at a URL to which the reader is redirected.

SUGGESTION THREE: The current Code contains no reference to headlines, and this loophole should be closed immediately.

Headlines should be covered by the same rules as the rest of a story. Further, headlines and titles for links should never be misleading in what they imply or offer and should always be substantiated by the article/contents.

SUGGESTION FOUR: Sources to be credited unless they do not wish to be credited or require anonymity/protection.

Sources should normally be credited. Any departure from this rule should only be when the source does not wish to be credited or if the source requires anonymity/protection.

SUGGESTION FIVE: A longer and more interactive consultation period for open discussion of more fundamental issues.

I submit all of the above without implying support for the PCC, the remainder of Code as it stands, or even the concept of self-regulation, and request that the 20th year of the PCC be marked with an open debate about its progress to date, and its future direction.

Sincere apologies for the inconvenience, and for the late notice. Good luck with your submission.

If you’d like to encourage/inspire others by going public with your submission immediately, a similar post will be going live at Liberal Conspiracy shortly (and making a quick/anonymous comment there is a LOT easier). Cheers all.

UPDATE – Liberal Conspiracy post is here.

About Tim Ireland

Tim is the sole author of Bloggerheads.
This entry was posted in Old Media. Bookmark the permalink.