Written evidence submitted by the Daily
Mail
It is typical of the half truths in Mr Davies'
book that he conflates PCC adjudications with the figures for
complaints and to pretend the numbers are some sort of indication
of accuracy. It is not that simple.
In the last five years, according to the PCC itself,
the Daily Mail newspaper has not had to print an adverse
adjudication from the Press Complaints Commission.
While it is true that the Daily Mail gets
a robust number of complaints it is not always true that it gets
more than others. In 2008 there were over 700 complaints
about the Times, compared to around 520 about the
Daily Mail.
It is important to realise that the quality
and quantity of complaints varies from the trivial to the serious,
from a single protest about one story to multiple complaints about
one article.
In our case:
— Some of them end up with the complainant
deciding not to pursue the complaint.
— Some end up with a pleasant exchange
of explanatory letters between the complainant and the paper's
Managing Editors acting for the Editor.
— Some end up with a published letter.
— A few end up with a clarification or
an apology in the newspaper.
The vast majority are resolved to the satisfaction
of the complainant.
It is pointless, in any event, to have "league
tables" of numbers of complaints. They are no indicators
of lack of quality or careless journalism.
There are several reasons for the number of
complaints we do get:
1. The Daily Mail has a huge circulation
and is read by more people than any other paper except the
Sun.
2. The Mail has the most discerning and intelligent
newspaper audience who take what we print seriously—but
often do not put the same weight on things published in the red-tops.
3. People who do not read the Mail nevertheless
take careful note of what we publish.
4. We have a vigorous and robust style which
naturally brings debate and dissension to the fore.
5. We publish more pages and more stories than
any of the popular, widely read newspapers.
6. We publish regular free advertisements in
our paper and on the website advertising the PCC's services and
inviting our readers to use them if they think we have gone wrong.
As the Committee heard, we publish the equivalent
of half of War and Peace every day and yes there will be errors
on occasion. Where mistakes are discovered we also strive to put
them right at the earliest opportunity.
I trust you will find the above helpful.
April 2009
| 
