Wednesday, 16 February 2011

The PCC has told us to remove our article so we'd like you to remove any evidence it ever existed from your blog, thanks.

Received today by quailmail:


Dear Sir/Madam,


It appears that you have reproduced parts of an article from our website (link below).


We have received a complaint from the Press Complaints Commission about this article and have as a result removed it from our websites and agreed to request that you do the same.


We would therefore ask that you remove this material and confirm removal.


Yours sincerely,


[name removed]
Deputy Managing Editor
MailOnline


http://www.dailyquail.org/2009/08/tawdry-dreams-of-daily-mail.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailyquail+(The+Daily+Quail)



Dear [name removed],


Please could you provide a copy of the PCC's ruling and the request that content be removed from the above URL. Could you also clarify the commission's specific requests on exactly what must be removed and their remit in ruling on non-newspaper blog content which - as far as I am aware - is not governed by the PCC. I was under the impression that blogs were not bound by PCC guidelines.

I would also appreciate some further information as to whether this is an ongoing complaint, if the article on MailOnline has been removed pending investigation or because it was found to contravene PCC guidelines, and, if the PCC has objected to content at the above URL, what specific issues they may have found.

Additionally, as quotes found in the blog post in question were taken from a print copy of the Daily Mail, is a notification of the ruling to be published in a future edition of the Daily Mail? I am more than happy to clarify that the original article on MailOnline has been removed and a correction provided in print, if this is acceptable.

Sincerely,
D. Quail.

8 comments:

  1. Excellent riposte. It will be interesting to see their response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, a very good reply. I have a sneaking suspicion that they might be trying their luck, using the PCC's name in the process.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, will they also be asking libraries to cut the offending bit out of archive copies too??

    ReplyDelete
  4. I assume so. Maybe the Mail will issue removal requests to Twitterers who dare mention any articles that have received complaints too?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great reply.

    If we all copy & paste your original blog in our own can we all expect an email?

    Do you mind if I do, if we all do?

    ReplyDelete
  6. And also to Google, to remove their cached copies...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do hope that you forward that onto the PCC once (if) you get a reply. Just in case the Mail is using their name in vain.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Mail loves sweeping inaccurate and offensive articles under the rug. In April 1999 they claimed there was a link between GM crops and meningitis: a ludicrous statement then and now. But trying to find the article now is not so easy...

    ReplyDelete