Confirmed: Daily Mail retractions now involve contacting other websites too

A few weeks ago that I received an email from the Daily Mail requesting we stop quoting an article they had published, since they had taken their piece down.

Their request was part of a settlement with the PCC, and I wondered if this had become standard for them now.

Looks like it has. Another agreement with the PCC on this retraction involved:

the submission of informal requests for removal on behalf of the complainant to other news sources that had re-published the original piece

So it seems blogs are likely to start getting a lot more requests from the Daily Mail to take down their material in case of a retraction.

It’s still not clear whether the PCC is forcing newspapers to do this, or whether it is voluntary.

hat-tip @grimreaperblog

Update: Five Chinese Crackers has written more on this.

Daily Quail was earlier contacted by the PCC who said the Mail was not forced to do this.

PCC says newspaper corrections online should be more prominent

The Press Complaints Commission today published guidance to the newspaper and magazine industry about the online prominence of PCC-negotiated corrections and apologies.

It also issues guidance on the prominence of critical adjudications issued by the PCC.

The guidance covers a number of practical points that editors should take into account when considering the prominence of online corrections and apologies.

These include:

- giving consideration to linking back to the original article

- the length of time that the correction or apology should remain online,

- tagging

- the amendment of URLs if necessary.

- giving consideration to appropriate placement on the relevant section where the original article appeared (such as the “news” or “showbusiness” section).

The guidance document also gives some more specific guidance about the publication of upheld adjudications issued by the PCC.

So if you are negotiating with the PCC for an apology from a newspaper, make sure you ask how the newspaper will ensure the apology is prominent online too.

Richard Littlejohn defends Billy Bragg shocker

No really, we’re not even making this up: Richard Littlejohn can write sensibly once in a blue moon.

This week he defends Billy Bragg:

Billy Bragg has become the subject of a campaign of vilification in his home village in Dorset.

Friends and neighbours have received hate mail urging them to run him out of Burton Bradstock, where he has a £1.5 million clifftop home.

He’s accused of being a celebrity hypocrite, because he lives in one of the whitest counties in England while supporting multiculturalism.
The illiterate, anonymous letter also claims he’s anti-English and backs Islamist terrorists.

Billy Bragg is old enough and ugly enough to stick up for himself. I probably disagree with him on just about everything, except for Woody Guthrie. But although we’re ­political opposites, I’ve always considered him A Good Thing.

The author of this nasty, little ­letter is as pig ignorant as he is ­cowardly. No one could ever accuse Billy of hating his country, even though he often disagrees with the direction he sees it heading.
Don’t we all, in our different ways?

His is an old-fashioned variety of patriotism, which used to be quite common on the Left.

He’s even written a book about it, in which he lambasts with equal venom both home-grown jihadists and wrap-yourself-in-the-flag BNP racists.

Billy Bragg is part of an English tradition which you can trace back to the Levellers. And why shouldn’t he enjoy the fruits of his success by swapping his home in London for a rural idyll in Dorset?

Although he was brought up in East London, I’ve always thought his heart lies in Tolpuddle. He’s ­passionate about his beliefs, but unlike so many on the Left, he’s not consumed by hatred and self-loathing. These days, he even votes Lib Dem, for heaven’s sake.

Billy thinks the hate mail is the work of a deranged, disgruntled BNP knuckle-scraper. He’s ­probably right. You should see what they write about me, old son.

You probably need a lie-down after being in agreement with Littlejohn. I sympathise.

BBC tries to reject complaints made over Jody McIntyre interview

Kevin Bakhurst, deputy head of the BBC Newsroom, has today responded to the many complaints over the interview with Jody McIntyre last night.

He says:

I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.

Where was the ‘web campaign’? There were lots of individuals discussing this and getting angry about it online, especially on Twitter, but there isn’t even a Facebook group in his support.

Does anyone else get the feeling BBC editors like to dismiss complaints they don’t like by pretending it’s a ‘web campaign’, as if that means hundreds of people are not angry about it?

He goes on to say:

I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.

Mr McIntyre says during the interview that “personally he sees himself equal to anyone else” and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position. Comments more than welcome.

In other words: we did nothing wrong guv, and those who say so are just part of some ‘campaign’. No doubt egged on by Mr Jody ‘revolutionary’ McIntyre himself.

Watch the full interview below

Amazon offers ludicrous explanation for why it dropped WikiLeaks hosting

Amazon Web Services have finally issued a statement on why they dropped web hosting for WikiLeaks.

Rather bizarrely, they claim they finally woke up to the realisation that WikiLeaks did not host all its own content, and published material created by others.

It also claims the latest revelations put “innocent people in jeopardy” without a shred of evidence to back it up.

In a blogpost on their site, they said today:

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) rents computer infrastructure on a self-service basis. AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that “you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.”

It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

The full excerpt is on their site. It is an extremely lame explanation; there is no evidence whatsoever that WikiLeaks content has endangered lives. Even Robert Gates admitted that. Amazon’s reputation will take a serious knock from this episode.

Johann Hari vs Richard Littlejohn: the full showdown!

This is a few years old, but the full exchange has finally been put on YouTube, and is definitely worth viewing.

The stupidity of Richard Littlejohn knows no bounds whatsoever.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: I won’t be pressing charges over offensive Tweet

Writing in her Independent column today, the columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says:

Some crazed demons on Twitter believe anything goes. Written words matter and hold meanings beyond that narcissistic urge to send off instant thoughts. The Tory councillor who sent out a vile and scary message about me says it was a joke.

After some thought I decided I will not press charges. My objections have been made and there is no need for more.

I’m pleased by this, and said earlier that it was a bad idea.

BBC admits Nick Robinson talked too much during Labour election

Blogger Tom Freeman complained to the BBC over its political coverage during the Labour leadership election.

This is the response he got back:

This was a significant political event and our aim was to reflect that in our coverage by striking a balance between live coverage of the event itself while offering analysis of the developments of the day as they unfolded.



However, complaints on this issue were forwarded to senior figures within the BBC Newsroom and BBC’s political team and they agree that on this occasion it was inappropriate to continue with the commentary and analysis whilst results were being read out. We would like to apologise for the interruption during the announcement.


Nick Robinson please go and sit on the naughty step for talking too much.

Watch: The inevitable animation news story – Obama and Ground Zero Mosque

You knew this one was coming didn’t you?

From the same people…

Alex Hilton and John Gray vs Kaschke judgement expected today

The decision for the case of bloggers Alex Hilton and John Gray versus Johanne Kaschke is expected later today.

It could be the culmination of a three year long libel action. If the bloggers win, the case will be struck out as an abuse of process. If they lose, there will be a full 2-3 week jury trial starting in October.

Judgement is expected today at 2pm, Court 4, St Dunstan’s House, Fetter Lane. Everyone is welcome to attend.

There is more background at the Jack of Kent blog.