There has been an alarming development concerning Ipso, the once steadfast press regulator. In the Spectator, Fraser Nelson takes a deep dive into a new Ipso ruling that upholds the complaint of the Fawcett Society regarding Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘low opinion’ of Meghan Markle, which appeared on page 17 in the Sun several months ago. If unchallenged, this ruling will materially affect press freedom going forward. Activist groups will now wield the power to complain on behalf of others, something that had hitherto been expressly forbidden by Ipso’s charter, effectively turning Ipso into the thought police. Twitter storms and political pressure will replace rationality, and the protection of opinions will become a relic of the past. The battle for press freedom has suffered a severe setback, and the future of free speech now hangs in the balance, says Fraser.
At 10pm on Friday night, the BBC sent out a ‘breaking news’ notification informing millions that a joke made by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle has been deemed sexist by Ipso, the press regulator. That such attention was given to a few sentences published on p.17 in a months-old article is odd, but the BBC had cottoned on to an important point: the battle for press freedom had just suffered a major setback. Hacked Off, an outfit campaigning for state regulation of the press, reacted with typical illiteracy, trumpeting: “Ipso finally upholed [sic] sexism complaint” marking “the first time in Ipso’s history that it upheld a complaint about sexism”. It is right to say that a bridge has been crossed, a defence of press freedom trampled upon. The activists have finally found a way through.
By upholding the Clarkson complaint, Ipso has torn up the previous protection expressed in its Editors’ Code: that opinion is not regulated. You’re not supposed to be able to complain on someone else’s behalf unless you have found a factual error and this a clause intended to stop Ipso being manipulated by activist groups. “Complaints can only be taken forward from the party directly affected,” ran the old rules. Had Meghan complained? If not, nothing to investigate. Ipso checks accuracy and protects individuals from press misbehaviour – but it was not set up as a thought police. It doesn’t judge taste.
The Clarkson ruling changes the rules. As of now, activists can now complain on someone else’s behalf. As of now, Ipso is indeed in the business of deciding if columns are sexist. And who do we find leading the charge in this new regime? Harriet Harman, the incoming chair of the Fawcett Society who is doing a lap of honour. Fawcett made the complaint (or, perhaps, was used by Hacked Off as a vehicle to make the complaint on behalf of women: the two groups have issued a joint statement). Ipso has, in effect, given Harman an editor’s pen, and one she is unlikely to hold back in using. If the ruling is allowed to stand (a judicial review is perhaps the only tool left to strike it down) then it has chilling new implications for every Ipso-regulated publication, including The Spectator.
What follows is complex, but it matters. The contours of free speech are decided by such technicalities.
Until now, a joke by Jeremy Clarkson would have been a matter between the newspaper and its readers. The digital age has brought informal pressure, where screengrabs allow a publication’s non-readers to vent outrage (the main commodity pushed by Twitter) and demand punishment or censorship. Jokes and satire are targeted the most, often presented as hate crimes. A trivial verbal flourish has been elevated to a heinous assault, one to be punished by the firing of the writer. Large publishers panic. From Iain Macwhirter to Kevin Myers, the mob are used to publications giving them the scalps they demand.
Ipso was designed to withstand the pressure of online mobs. It had, until now, made this clear: if a Clarkson joke offends you, or if you don’t like what the Daily Mail said about Angela Rayner or its ‘Legs-it’ cover with Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon, don’t waste your time complaining to Ipso. It only takes complaints from those referred to. It protects individuals but doesn’t do the bidding of activists. This was an iron rule, repeated time and time again.
Clarkson’s joke about Meghan whipped up a Category-A Twitter storm and 60 MPs expressed their outrage. Until now, their opinion did not count for anything. In Britain, politicians have no writ over the press. But now, that has changed.
Let’s go back to what Clarkson said. He had watched the Meghan Markle Netflix documentary. He was not a big fan.
I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level. At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, “Shame!” and throw lumps of excrement at her.
Any Game of Thrones fan will have got the reference and those unfamiliar would have got the idea. Clarkson had a few more things to say, like that Markle used her feminine wiles to make her husband woke, etc. Were his jokes risqué? Absolutely. Was it funny? Sexist? Over the line? Here’s the point: in a free press, no outside organisation can draw that line. It’s between readers and the publications that they choose to buy. The law stipulates what is illegal, and press regulators insist upon factual accuracy. But opinions? They are not regulated in this country and have not been for 300 years. This is a fundamental point upon which free speech and press freedom depend.
The Sun did decide it was a mistake to publish. It apologised (as did Clarkson) and the piece has been purged from cyberspace. But as the Sun is now finding out, apologies only intensify a Twitterstorm: some 25,000 emails ended up being sent to Ipso about Clarkson, the most ever. This figure is of course dwarfed by the 700,000-strong readership of the Sun, but I doubt the latter wrote to Ipso. The asymmetry worked and Ipso crumbled.
In deeming Clarkson sexist, Ipso has – for the first time – imposed on newspaper columnists a line drawn by others (usually those who hate the newspaper). “A big step forward,” says Harman. It certainly is. An independent press regulator, which is supposed to defend the press and readers against Twitter storms and political interference has just succumbed to both.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.