Further to our recent correspondence the Commission has now considered the complaints received about the article in The Guardian and decided that it was not possible, in the circumstances, to examine them further under the Code of Practice.
The Commission usually deals only with complaints from those directly involved. On this occasion, it did not consider that it could waive its rules and investigate your third party complaint further. Its decision on this matter is attached.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been
handled you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or at
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
We are grateful to you for giving us the opportunity to consider what you have to say.
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Hales
rebecca.hales@pcc.org.uk
cc Alan Rusbridger Esq
Editor
The Guardian
Commission’s decision in the case of
Various v The Guardian
The Commission acknowledged that the opinion column had raised strong feelings, and that ten complainants were genuinely concerned about the manner in which the columnist had portrayed Michael Jackson.
The complainants’ concerns could be summarised as follows: that the article inaccurately reported details of Michael Jackson’s trial for the alleged abuse of Jordan Chandler; that the piece presented a distorted view of Michael Jackson and his life (for example, it stated that Michael Jackson had paid a witch doctor to kill 42 cows and “was never happier than when lying in a pile of children”); that the article constituted the harassment of a cultural icon; that the piece named a child involved in a sex case; and that the article made discriminatory comments about Michael Jackson and his sexual preferences.
Generally speaking, the Commission does not consider complaints from third parties where there is a clear first party to the complaint, whose opinions would have to be considered and whose interests would have to be consulted. On this occasion, Michael’s immediate family were the relevant first parties to the complaint.
Many of the concerns raised rested on the impact of the coverage on the Jackson family and the singer’s memory. Two complainants were concerned Clause 4 (Harassment) had been breached and two individuals argued that the article was discriminatory. In this instance, the Commission felt that it must be for the Jackson family to gauge such issues as this, and to make clear whether they have found that there has been an incidence of harassment or discrimination, as alleged by complainants. They had not done so.
On that basis, the Commission concluded that it could not take forward the complaints under Clauses 4 and 12 of the Code. These clauses clearly relate to the personal experience of given individuals. It would not be possible to investigate them properly, or resolve them satisfactorily, without the strong input of those individuals themselves. The Commission had given the complainants’ concerns careful consideration but concluded that the matter could not be taken forward independently of the bereaved family.
Similarly, the Commission was not in a position to pursue the complaint received under Clause 7 (Children in sex cases) without the direct involvement of Jordan Chandler’s family.
The complaints under Clause 1 (Accuracy) raised a slightly different issue. Eight people had said that the article was misleading in its portrayal of Michael Jackson’s life and his trial for child abuse. The Commission had to consider the impact on the readers themselves, who may have been misinformed by the piece.
The Commission noted that the article was an opinion piece clearly identified as such in the “Comment is Free” section of the newspaper in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iii). The piece contained the journalist’s personal impression of Michael Jackson’s lifestyle and talents. There was no question, in the Commission’s view, of readers being misled into believing that there was no alternative view on the matter. In any case, the Commission would never be in a position to know the full details of Michael Jackson’s own account of what happened and it would be for his family to pursue complaints relating directly to accounts of his life. The Commission emphasised that it has been in contact with representatives of the Jacksons, but they had not submitted a complaint about the piece. The Commission did not consider that it was appropriate to pursue an investigation (the outcome of which would be likely to be public) without the consent of the singer’s family.
The Commission was grateful to the complainants for raising these issues and accepted that they felt strongly about what had taken place. It had given their opinions careful consideration. The decision that the matter could not be taken forward was taken with regard to the full circumstances of the matter.
Finally, many complainants were concerned that the article was highly offensive to Michael Jackson’s numerous fans. However, the Commission made clear that issues of taste and offensiveness fell outside its remit and, as such, it was unable to comment on that matter.
Reference Nos 094898 - 095018
@page Section1{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;}.ExternalClass P.ecxMsoNormal{font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}.ExternalClass LI.ecxMsoNormal{font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}.ExternalClass DIV.ecxMsoNormal{font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}.ExternalClass A:link{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;}.ExternalClass SPAN.ecxMsoHyperlink{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;}.ExternalClass A:visited{color
urple;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;}.ExternalClass SPAN.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed{color
urple;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;}.ExternalClass SPAN.ecxChar{font-family:Tahoma;}.ExternalClass SPAN.ecxSpellE{;}.ExternalClass SPAN.ecxGramE{;}.ExternalClass DIV.ecxSection1{page:Section1;}
Rebecca Hales
Complaints Officer
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
