Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Liddle
Ipso’s ruling published below Rod Liddle’s column in today’s Sun, without a recognisable headline. Photograph: Public domain
Ipso’s ruling published below Rod Liddle’s column in today’s Sun, without a recognisable headline. Photograph: Public domain

The Sun censured by Ipso for Rod Liddle's discriminatory column

This article is more than 8 years old

Press regulator orders paper to publish landmark ruling upholding complaint

Sun columnist Rod Liddle has been censured by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) for crudely mocking a woman’s gender identity and her disability.

Having upheld a complaint against the newspaper, Ipso required it to publish its ruling on the same page as Liddle’s column. It appears today at the foot of his latest column and online.

It should be seen as a landmark decision because it is the first complaint Ipso has accepted from a representative group rather than an individual.

Under its rules, Ipso may consider such complaints if “an alleged breach of the editors’ code is significant” and there is a “substantial public interest” for doing so.

The complaint against Liddle was made by Trans Media Watch, which acted with the consent of Emily Brothers. It contended that items in Liddle’s columns on 11 December 2014 and 15 January 2015 discriminated against Brothers because of prejudicial and pejorative references to her disability and gender.

In the first instance, Liddle reported that Brothers was hoping to become Labour’s first blind transgendered MP by standing for election in Sutton and Cheam. “Being blind”, he wrote, “how did she know she was the wrong sex?”

When Trans Media Watch complained to the Sun about the remark, the paper accepted that it was tasteless but denied that it was prejudicial or pejorative.

It did not accept that Liddle had criticised Brothers or suggested anything negative or stereotypical about her blindness or gender identity. Instead, it had been a clumsy attempt at humour.

So it issued an apology from the columnist and offered Brothers a column. She took up the offer and her article was published on 15 December.

But Liddle’s apology, published a month later, compounded the hurt. He conceded that he had “made a poor joke in bad taste” about Brothers and that it “was particularly lame… a poor joke... even if it wasn’t meant maliciously”.

But he went on to use her former name and the way he worded the item was regarded by Trans Media Watch as a deliberate attempt to humiliate Brothers amounting to further discrimination.

In its defence, the Sun said it had reviewed its editorial processes and introduced a new policy requiring all copy relating to transgender matters to be approved by its managing editor before publication.

It told Ipso that its apology, and the fact it gave Brothers space to respond, were adequate remedies for the hurt. It would therefore be disproportionate for Ipso to uphold the complaint.

Ipso disagreed. It regarded the initial column as discriminatory and although it welcomed the paper’s response it said its denial that it had breached the editors’ code gave force to Trans Media Watch’s complaint. Ipso was entitled to adjudicate on the matter.

Ipso’s complaints committee did not accept that Liddle’s apology was genuine because he had used it as an opportunity for a further attempt at humour at the expense of Brothers.

The committee ordered the Sun to publish its decision upholding the complaint, adding: “The headline should make clear that Ipso has upheld the complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed in advance” (NB: Ipso’s ruling, as published in print today, carries no proper headline).

Matt Tee, Ipso’s chief executive, said the organisation had conducted a lengthy investigation into the complaint. He said: “It is important that Ipso, when dealing with complaints that have generated significant public or group interest, lays out a clear account of our process and findings.

“We hope this will be useful not only to complainants, but also for journalists and editors seeking guidance on the editors’ code.”

Comment: I think this ruling is significant for two major reasons. Firstly, it set a benchmark by investigating a complaint made by a group. Secondly, it acted because the Sun, despite its remedies, had refused to concede that Liddle had breached the editors’ code.

The decision to respond to a group acting on behalf of an individual suggests that Ipso has taken on board the concerns of many critics of its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission.

I also believe that this could pave the way to further complaints because many individuals in the past have felt too cowed to argue their own case against newspapers. This, I believe, is how Ipso will proceed in future.

As for the complaint itself, it may be argued that Liddle was merely availing himself of his right to freedom of expression. But we need to remind ourselves that the code constraining the uninhibited exercise of that freedom was drawn up by editors who did not, and should not, regard it as a denial of press freedom.

The clause on discrimination states that “the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”.

In poking fun at Brothers for being blind and being transgender Liddle was clearly in breach of that clause.

And now a question for the Sun (and Ipso): what about that missing headline?

Source and full adjudication: Ipso

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed