Reply from IPSOS

[Miss Pepper]

They need to place one of their responses in the paper to show they messed up!

Normally it goes on page two explaining they were wrong

 

[steffijade]

Any suggestions folks? Personally I don't think a foot note on an article buried in the archives is good enough, but I don't know what to ask for instead.

A footnote addition doesn't suffice imho.

Anything they publish should be given the same prominence as the original article, detail what they have changed and WHY they've changed it.

Given the scare mongering headline in the original article, I would think a separate article was required with an equally prominent headline.

Sounds like you've got em on the run... perhaps making unreasonable demands and then grudigngly accepting a slightly watered down version might be an idea. Sort of like a bid process, where you start high, they start low and you meet somewhere in the middle?

It seems like a footnote is the concession they're willing to make but that would be a bare minimum imho.

 

[Diche]

A footnote addition doesn't suffice imho.

Anything they publish should be given the same prominence as the original article, detail what they have changed and WHY they've changed it.

Given the scare mongering headline in the original article, I would think a separate article was required with an equally prominent headline.

Sounds like you've got em on the run... perhaps making unreasonable demands and then grudigngly accepting a slightly watered down version might be an idea. Sort of like a bid process, where you start high, they start low and you meet somewhere in the middle?

It seems like a footnote is the concession they're willing to make but that would be a bare minimum imho.

Yeah that was kind of my thinking. Ask for an article about the real science that is being done. Maybe a piece on the work of Dr Farsalinos that is about to be published or something like that. Something that really challenges the scaremongering reports that are currently being produced.

 

[Diche]

I think I am going to be in need of some urgent help on phrasing tomorrow or Friday. Essentially I think I am going to need to point out that IPSOS is a completely and utterly toothless wonder that despite having upheld my claim has no intention of holding the paper to account in any meaningful way. If anyone has any key phrases I should be looking to include please share.

Essentially where we are at present is that IPSOS have effectively upheld my complaint, though they have never said that out loud.
The newspaper have repeatedly offered to add a footnote to the original article that I have repeatedly refused to accept as an acceptable outcome.
I have suggested an article featuring the work of Dr Farsalinos and/or Louise Ross would be an acceptable way to rectify some of the harm done by the original article.
The paper have repeatedly said they will consider this should Dr Farsalinos's research prove to be 'newsworthy'
IPSOS have repeatedly asked me to close the case on this basis, which you can bloody guarantee would mean the research would be deemed 'un-newsworthy' and a footnote would be the end result.
I have repeatedly refused to close the case and held it open pending the release of Dr Farsalinos's results.
I have also updated IPSOS regarding the frequency with which the editors of the Mirror group do appear to find the subject of e-cigarettes 'newsworthy'.
The most recent deadline for closure of the case was 20/5/15, unfortunately for them Dr Farsalinos released an abbreviated outline of his results before midnight, and the full text is now available
Fortunately for me I was online when it happened so they can screw their bloody deadline.

I am therefore of the opinion that I am going to be getting an email tomorrow declaring the work of Dr Farsalinos to be 'un-newsworthy' and requesting yet again that I settle for a footnote on an article that no-one will ever read again for the simple reason that it is not NEWS. What that means is that I will be looking to take my complaint further and work out how to make a complaint against IPSOS for not doing their bloody job.

Suggestions gratefully received.

steffijade HELP!

 

[steffijade]

I think I am going to be in need of some urgent help on phrasing tomorrow or Friday. Essentially I think I am going to need to point out that IPSOS is a completely and utterly toothless wonder that despite having upheld my claim has no intention of holding the paper to account in any meaningful way. If anyone has any key phrases I should be looking to include please share.

Essentially where we are at present is that IPSOS have effectively upheld my complaint, though they have never said that out loud.
The newspaper have repeatedly offered to add a footnote to the original article that I have repeatedly refused to accept as an acceptable outcome.
I have suggested an article featuring the work of Dr Farsalinos and/or Louise Ross would be an acceptable way to rectify some of the harm done by the original article.
The paper have repeatedly said they will consider this should Dr Farsalinos's research prove to be 'newsworthy'
IPSOS have repeatedly asked me to close the case on this basis, which you can bloody guarantee would mean the research would be deemed 'un-newsworthy' and a footnote would be the end result.
I have repeatedly refused to close the case and held it open pending the release of Dr Farsalinos's results.
I have also updated IPSOS regarding the frequency with which the editors of the Mirror group do appear to find the subject of e-cigarettes 'newsworthy'.
The most recent deadline for closure of the case was 20/5/15, unfortunately for them Dr Farsalinos released an abbreviated outline of his results before midnight, and the full text is now available
Fortunately for me I was online when it happened so they can screw their bloody deadline.

I am therefore of the opinion that I am going to be getting an email tomorrow declaring the work of Dr Farsalinos to be 'un-newsworthy' and requesting yet again that I settle for a footnote on an article that no-one will ever read again for the simple reason that it is not NEWS. What that means is that I will be looking to take my complaint further and work out how to make a complaint against IPSOS for not doing their bloody job.

Suggestions gratefully received.

@steffijade HELP!

Unfortunately, we have to operate in a system where we have organisations like IPSOS are set up to act as 'damage sponges'. Their sole purpose seems to be there for people to rant to and to soak up anger. They may occasionally throw a bone to appease folk who refuse to go away, but they rely on people getting fed up and letting matters drop.

It's a crappy system, but it's what we have to work with.

Personally, I would be tempted to contact IPSOS, tell them you're fed up of being messed around and unless they agree to grow some teeth and force the mirror to play ball, you'll be contacting this chap : https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-culture-olympics-media-and-sport and questioning whether IPSOS is carrying out it's duties in accordance with government policy : https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ndent-system-of-self-regulation-for-the-press

The whole idea behind IPSOS was to create an organisation that acted fairly and din't seek to just protect the press. The Secretary for culture, media and sport should have a keen interest in seeing that IPSOS is doing what it's supposed to and if it isn't, he should be looking to intervene and make them.

Of course the whole system is corrupt to some degree, so the minister might just offer platitudes but the fact that Mr Whittingdale has the BBC crapping themselves over their charter might offer some hope? Maybe he's one of those rare MP types that might give a crap.

Either way, he's had a bit of time to get his feet under the table after being appointed so maybe, just maybe he'll be looking for something to sink his teeth into as an appetiser before the BBC's charter is up for renewal next year. The fact that he's also a tory might well mean that he has no love for the mirror too.. maybe that might be a happy coincidence.

The TLDR version :

IPSOS will continue to screw you around until you get bored.

Threaten to go over their heads unless they stop screwing you around.

Go over their heads if they won't pay ball (though be aware, you may have to go through your local MP initially and get them to raise the matter with Whittingdale first).

Good luck.

 

[Diche]

Unfortunately, we have to operate in a system where we have organisations like IPSOS are set up to act as 'damage sponges'. Their sole purpose seems to be there for people to rant to and to soak up anger. They may occasionally throw a bone to appease folk who refuse to go away, but they rely on people getting fed up and letting matters drop.

It's a crappy system, but it's what we have to work with.

Personally, I would be tempted to contact IPSOS, tell them you're fed up of being messed around and unless they agree to grow some teeth and force the mirror to play ball, you'll be contacting this chap : https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-culture-olympics-media-and-sport and questioning whether IPSOS is carrying out it's duties in accordance with government policy : https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ndent-system-of-self-regulation-for-the-press

The whole idea behind IPSOS was to create an organisation that acted fairly and din't seek to just protect the press. The Secretary for culture, media and sport should have a keen interest in seeing that IPSOS is doing what it's supposed to and if it isn't, he should be looking to intervene and make them.

Of course the whole system is corrupt to some degree, so the minister might just offer platitudes but the fact that Mr Whittingdale has the BBC crapping themselves over their charter might offer some hope? Maybe he's one of those rare MP types that might give a crap.

Either way, he's had a bit of time to get his feet under the table after being appointed so maybe, just maybe he'll be looking for something to sink his teeth into as an appetiser before the BBC's charter is up for renewal next year. The fact that he's also a tory might well mean that he has no love for the mirror too.. maybe that might be a happy coincidence.

The TLDR version :

IPSOS will continue to screw you around until you get bored.

Threaten to go over their heads unless they stop screwing you around.

Go over their heads if they won't pay ball (though be aware, you may have to go through your local MP initially and get them to raise the matter with Whittingdale first).

Good luck.

Thank you, that is exactly the info I needed. I'm well aware they are hoping I will get bored and give up, but you would have thought after 5 months they would have realised that isn't going to be the case.

One thing I did do differently last night was sign the letter with my VIP job title and election imprint, I haven't done that so far, as this has been an entirely private complaint, but I thought it might give them a bit more insight into the fact I am unlikely to go away.

 

[Diche]

Well I guess my persistence is paying off, at least in part. I have been bumped up to the next level

Dear Ms Xxxxxxxx

I write further to our recent correspondence.
As the complaint has not been resolved, it will now be passed to the Complaints Committee for a decision. For the avoidance of confusion, the Committee will consider the complaint as follows:
Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “E-cigarette health scare erupts as officials highlight “serious” cancer risk of vaping”, published on 29 January 2015.

In line with the regulations, the Complaints Committee will not make its decision before 14 days from the date of this letter......

 

[Diche]

This is what I sent that got the response if anyone is interested or needs some ideas in the future.

Dear Xxxxx,



Here is further detail of the results of the research including the press release that was made available to the media today, and therefore held under embargo from the public until midnight. E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in “dry puff” conditions (irrespective of the power levels)


As I am sure you can see (given your no doubt increasing knowledge on this subject) the scientific results speak directly to the subject that was so badly misrepresented in the article released by the Mirror Online in January. I feel the information contained is clearly vastly newsworthy given the frequency that the Mirror Group have seen fit to publish on this subject over the last 5 months.



I am fairly confident given proceedings so far that the newspaper are going to attempt to argue that this ground-breaking research is not 'newsworthy', and once again suggest that a footnote on an out of date article hidden in the archives is sufficient to fulfil the requirements of due prominence. I would like to make it clear that at no point am I going to concur with that, even if I have to hold this case open another 5 months.


Should that be the end result I would have to come to the conclusion that the editors code and the entire edifice of the Independent Press Standards Organisation was not worth the paper it is written on and act accordingly with a further complaint, this time directed against IPSO itself. If you cannot perform the job you were created to do and hold the press to account when they blatantly act outside the code then I feel the entire concept of the code is cast into doubt.



Newspapers write the news and, as I have stated from the very beginning, correcting an article days after the original publication is not acceptable. Reports should meet the required standard at point of publication or the entire premise of the code is completely and utterly pointless. It would result in a situation where they could publish whatever they wanted and then simply hide corrections in the archive. This is not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the code.



I fail to see any way in which the addition of a footnote to an altered archived report would deter them from continuing to act this way in the future. If they continue to offer this as the only available option and IPSO continue to allow them to do so, I will be left with little choice regarding my actions in this matter.


Yours sincerely,

 

[Chegs]

As usual,I'm late to the party but would like to offer Diche/steffijade my most sincere thanks for pursuing this matter.

 

[james10]

I have just come across this also, Id like to say a huge thank you for what you are doing and to the gent providing insights. I find it incredible that they can mess you around for half a year and allude to evidence as not being "news worthy", meaning that agenda ridden conjecture and falsities are.