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.
“Activist groups will now wield the power to complain on behalf of others”
I wonder how much success a conservative/right wing/non woke “activist group” would have in complaining on behalf of, for example, a lockdown sceptic who had been accused of being a granny killer for not following rules, being an anti-vaxxer etc.
Clarkson, I believe, made the fatal error of issuing a grovelling apology to the MMthus playing right into the hands of the activists. Presumably his fear of being cancelled trumped upholding principle.
This may both encourage activist groups to continue lodging//pursuing complaints to IPSO and emboldens the politicised IPSO to arrive at their ruling of upholding the complaint.
Piers Morgan did at least refuse to apologise to MM.
Never apologise, never explain.
IPSO effectively supported the COVID narrative. They are not independent.
yes I made several complaints to IPSO that the disgraceful series of articles in the MSM in early 2022 reminiscent of how things started in Germany that those refusing the jab were idiots, unclean,should not be allowed in hospitals, on public transport, made to suffer etc; offended the code as being discriminatory,harassing and inaccurate. IPSO rejected all complaints which it justified on the basis of a very strict legalistic interpretation of its rules
The veneer of civilization is waffer thin and is peeling away faster than a ginger with sunburn.
Oi..!
https://www.farminguk.com/news/natural-england-gives-sssi-status-to-penwith-moors-amid-farmer-concern_62886.html
A very worrying development. Land which has been effectively managed by local farmers for centuries will now be “locked up.” The attacks on farms and farmers will definitely intensify.
Interesting that the area is of value to wildlife after thousands of years of farmers managing it, so their solution is to stop the farmers managing it? A very similar thing is happening in Western Australia. Under the guise of protecting Aboriginal Cultural Heritage new legislation was passed which requires anyone who owns land greater than 1100 square meters to seek an assessment and approval prior to undertaking any disturbance in case they disturb potential cultural heritage sites.
Good points. Thanks.
Ipso, the press regulator…
I am absolutely fed up to the back teeth with ‘regulators’…
Regulators curtailing free speech, regulators facilitating the promotion of highly questionable medical products such as the Covid vaccines…
We’re awash with ‘regulation’ which is not working for the people.
Whose best interests are being served by this overbearing regulation?
I do not consent!
Hear, hear.
The only interests served are those of the serially incompetent who can’t get a job in the commercial world so end up as a ‘regulator’ sticking their noses in others’ business.
I see that the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian have opted out of IPSO. Perhaps it’s time the other papers did too.
I believe the chances of Jeremy Clarkson writing for any of the above publications is on the far side of remote.
True. But irrelevant!
Actually it is not irrelevant as it very neatly points out the bias of the named publications and of IPSOS.
above I have referred to my complaints being rejected by IPSO. At least I was able to complain about articles inTelegraph, Mirror, Express and Mail but I remeber could not do so for one in Evening Standard as not a member. So despite all its faults I am even more suspicious of those papers who are not members of IPSO.
Agreed. The use of the expression “going forward” at the end of the second sentence is incomprehensible, however.