regulation


Complaints are disproportionately harsh on freelances, says Charlie Moloney


When IPSO comes calling


W


henever I’ve had a particularly busy month of writing articles, I tend to experience three


feelings. First, a certain sense of relief that as a freelance journalist I have invoices to send out and can keep the wolf from the door. Second, a certain amount of pride that my work is able to catch the attention of editors in this competitive field. But third, a deep sense of unease as the number of articles I have published stacks up, expanding the potential for complaints. Since going freelance in January 2021, I had never been the subject of a complaint, though the prospect of facing one has always loomed large. Although I had previously faced down legal letters and regulatory complaints as a staff reporter for a regional agency, being a freelance makes you feel more exposed. Complaints pose a significant


reputational threat to a journalist. No publisher will run stories from a ‘dodgy’ reporter. This is an existential danger for freelancers, whose earnings are based on how much copy they sell. It finally happened in February this


year, in the form of a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) from a man who had been jailed for 20 months for stalking. The complainant accused me of including ‘various serious inaccuracies and blatant fabrication’ in six different articles about his case. In total there were seven different complaints under IPSO’s editors’ code of practice, mostly dealing with clause 1 (accuracy). Responding to this complaint was a big job. I had to dust off three separate


shorthand notepads, go back over the three separate hearings and create transcriptions for IPSO to review. I also had to create a comprehensive bundle setting out the facts of the case, respond to each complaint in turn and I also included a section urging IPSO not to provide any ‘succour or encouragement’ to a convicted stalker. All the work I did responding to the


complaint was unpaid. Most outlets have it in their terms of engagement that contributors will be expected to assist – at no extra cost – if any complaints arise. This makes business sense but it


creates a disproportionately harsh outcome for freelancers. While staff journalists would respond to complaints during their working day, freelancers must take time away from paid work to defend their journalism. Also, immense anxiety descends


when a complaint comes in. Your article is placed under the glare of a searchlight. Any failure to express yourself clearly enough, or to provide enough context, or to have sufficient attention to detail, will be exposed. This is particularly true in news journalism, where we write everything at 100mph (or 100wpm). News reporting is fast paced and tightly written. Brutal cutting decisions are made to stay within word count. The top line has to be extraordinarily engaging for the copy to get noticed. I also put my copy ‘all around’, which means I can end up dealing with queries from numerous journalists simultaneously. All of this is done without any team member to confer with before making crucial decisions.


Regretfully, I did notice immediately there was one mistake. My article stated the defendant had moved to live on the same street or next door to the victim. In fact, it had been said in court he moved ‘round the corner’ from her. This required a correction. I was crestfallen to discover this


mistake. Journalists pride themselves on getting all the details correct and noting I had not managed to get that one detail right, despite having the correct information available in my notes, left me feeling despondent. Overall though, IPSO found in my


favour in respect of all four other complaints – two have not been ruled on. The complaints committee even took the opportunity to thank me for the level of detail I was able to provide in terms of contemporaneous notes and court documents and said they did not wish to minimise the complainant’s conviction. This was something of a victory,


“


Immense anxiety descends when a complaint comes in. Your article is placed under the glare of a searchlight


given the articles weathered the storm and all remain online. But it has given me cause to reflect on regulatory complaints generally. IPSO prominently features the outcome at the top of their decisions. It is pretty binary – either ‘breach’ or ‘no breach’. My one reads ‘breach’ because of the one error I’ve mentioned. In future, if I see other journalists


who have been found to have breached the code, I think I’ll take a bit more trouble to read about what they got right rather than just focusing on what they got wrong.


theJournalist | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28