DMG Readerseditor

We take great pride in the quality of our journalism and do our utmost to ensure the accuracy of everything we publish. All our journalists in the UK are required to observe the rules of the Editors’ Code of Practice and we are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the new regulatory body for the press set up in response to the Leveson Inquiry.
One of IPSO’s key principles is that all its members should have effective mechanisms for dealing with complaints and correcting errors as promptly as possible. If you wish to complain about a story relating to a news event within the UK in one of our publications , or the behaviour of one of our journalists, we will do everything we can to put matters right.

But first, please take a few moments to read the advice below:

1. Is your complaint covered by the Editors’ Code of Practice?

The Editors’ Code sets standards for accuracy, respect for privacy, cases of intrusion into grief or shock, stories involving children, discrimination and the behaviour of journalists, including photographers.to check whether your complaint is covered by the Code and make a note of the clause you believe has been breached.
If you wish to draw an issue to our attention but do not wish to make a formal complaint under IPSO rules, click here to send your concerns to our Managing Editor.

2. Important points to check before you submit your complaint

Under IPSO rules complaints will normally only be accepted within four months of the date of publication of the article, or the journalistic conduct in question. Outside that period, complaints can be considered up to 12 months after the date of first publication only if the article remains on our website, and it can be investigated fairly given the passage of time.
Please note that we cannot begin considering a complaint until we have received all supporting documentation you wish to submit, including correspondence with the journalist concerned.
Normally complaints can only be considered if they are made by a person who has been personally and directly affected by an alleged breach of the Editors’ Code. If you are making a complaint on behalf of another individual you need to enclose with your complaint an email or letter from that individual, giving you permission to act on their behalf.
If you are taking legal action against any of our publications, you need to let us know, because we may then be unable to consider your complaint under IPSO rules.
Complaints from representative groups affected by an alleged breach of the Code can only be considered where the alleged breach is significant and where there is a substantial public interest in it being considered.
Third party complaints can only be considered where they seek to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information, in which case the position of the party most closely involved will be taken into account.
Complaints may be rejected if there is no apparent breach of the Editors’ Code, or if they are without justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of opinion or to lobby), vexatious, or disproportionate.
Complaints about headlines will normally only be considered in the context of the article as a whole to which they relate. IPSO only regulates MailOnline content relating to news events within the UK. If you wish to complain about non-UK content please go to [email protected].

3. What happens next?

As soon as we have checked that we have all the relevant information to consider your complaint it will be acknowledged and considered by our Readers’ Editor.
The Readers’ Editor, who is a qualified lawyer and not a member of any of our publications’ editorial staff, will come to an independent decision on how to take your complaint forward.
If the Readers’ Editor cannot establish that there has been a potential breach of the Editors’ Code, they will inform you of their decision.
If we receive a number of complaints about the same issue the Readers’ Editor may identify one complainant as the lead complainant, with whom we will attempt to resolve the case. If a resolution is agreed we will inform other complainants of the outcome.
If the Readers’ Editor believes there has been a potential breach of the Code they will pass your complaint to the Managing Editor, who may offer you remedial action.
In cases of inaccuracy you may be offered a clarification or correction. If this is the case the Managing Editor will offer you a wording, which will usually be published in the Clarifications and Corrections column which appears on Page Two of the newspaper concerned, or in the case of our websites online.
Unless it involves a straightforward factual error, a clarification or correction will normally not be published until you have told the Managing Editor you are happy with the wording. Once you are satisfied and the clarification or correction has been published the complaint is closed. It may also be closed if you do not respond to our offer.
In cases where a clarification or correction is not an appropriate remedy, such as invasion of privacy, intrusion into grief, or behaviour by a journalist which is in breach of the Editors’ Code, the Managing Editor may offer you an apology. This may be in the form of a published statement or a private letter. If a statement is to be published you may be asked to approve the wording.
If your case has been referred to us by IPSO both parties must inform IPSO of the outcome.

4. What happens if I am not happy with the remedy offered to me?

Under IPSO rules we must attempt to resolve all complaints before they are considered by IPSO. If after 28 days your complaint has not been resolved you are then free to take it to IPSO. Visit the IPSO website to find out how to do that: www.ipso.co.uk
If IPSO’s Complaints Committee finds that your complaint has disclosed a potential breach of the Editors’ Code it will try to mediate an agreed resolution.
If the Complaints Committee cannot resolve your complaint by mediation it will determine whether or not there has been a breach of the Editors’ Code. This may result in an adjudication with a requirement for us to take remedial action, which may consist of publication of a correction and/or the adjudication itself.
The nature, extent and placement of such an adjudication and/or correction will be determined by the Complaints Committee. Remedial action will not normally include an apology unless that has been agreed by you and the publication.

Please note IPSO has no authority to award financial compensation.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), as Regulator, is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice, which was framed by the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee and is enshrined in the contractual agreement between IPSO and newspaper, magazine and electronic news publishers.

The Code

The Code – including this preamble and the public interest exceptions below – sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press subscribing to the Independent Press Standards Organisation have undertaken to maintain. It is the cornerstone of the system of voluntary self-regulation to which they have made a binding contractual commitment. It balances both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know.

To achieve that balance, it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit. It should be interpreted neither so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it infringes the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevents publication in the public interest.

It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of their publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists.

Editors must maintain in-house procedures to resolve complaints swiftly and, where required to do so, cooperate with IPSO. A publication subject to an adverse adjudication must publish it in full and with due prominence, as required by IPSO.

Clause 1 Accuracy

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

*Clause 2 Privacy

Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.
It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note - private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

*Clause 3 Harassment

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

*Clause 4 Intrusion into grief or shock

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

*Clause 5 Reporting suicide

When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media’s right to report legal proceedings.

*Clause 6 Children

All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.
Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child’s interest.
Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.

*Clause 7 Children in sex cases

The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -

The child must not be identified.
The adult may be identified.
The word “incest” must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.

*Clause 8 Hospitals

Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.
The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.

*Clause 9 Reporting of crime

Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

*Clause 10 Clandestine devices and subterfuge

The Press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Clause 11 Victims of sexual assault

The Press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.

Clause 12 Discrimination

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.
Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Clause 13 Financial journalism

Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.
They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.

Clause 14 Confidential sources

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Clause 15 Witness payments in criminal trials

No payment or offer of payment to a witness — or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness — should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.
* Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.
* Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.

*Clause 16 Payment to criminals

Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.
Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.

The public interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

The public interest includes, but is not confined to:

Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
Protecting public health or safety.
Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.

There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain or will or will become so.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication – or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
An exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under 16.