PCC Editors Code of Practice review: Important Update

January 25th, 2010 § 3 comments

As you can see, if you follow the link to our petition, iPetitons dog ate it.

For all his efforts, Tim couldn’t get iPetitions to feed it some canine laxatives so we could have it back in a timely manner, and so is still waiting the data that was collected and probably won’t see it this side of March. Which will be too late.

So what we need you to do, even if you left your name and suggestions for the review on the petition is to send an email to:

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

This one needs to be done today (25 January) as it closes today. If you do not want your submission to be made public, you will have to specifically tell them. Also send you suggestions to:

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

The deadline for this one is 31 January.

Here are the five suggestions on the original petition…

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.

There is also a post at Liberal Conspiracy where submissions can also be left via the comments.

Tagged ,

§ 3 Responses to PCC Editors Code of Practice review: Important Update"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading PCC Editors Code of Practice review: Important Update at Sim-O.