LOCAL PRESS: Press Complaints Commission asks Leatherhead Advertiser to apologise

Leatherhead Advertiser 's knuckes rapped over traveller slur

Paper overstepped the mark

April 30, 2009: The Leatherhead Advertiser today publishes an apology for its coverage of a recent murder case. The apology is the result of a complaint by the editor of the Bookham Bugle to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

On January 29 this year the Leatherhead Advertiser led page 7 with a report linking 'travellers' with the murder of Matthew Demko, a young Ashtead man, in May last year. During the Old Bailey trial of Michael Jordan, later acquitted of the murder, Jordan claimed that detective inspector Paul Rymarz, who led the enquiry, had told him there were travellers in the vicinity on the day of Demko's death.

In court, Rymarz dismissed reports of Gypsies in the area as no more than rumour. The Advertiser's story reported this in paragraph 6, but its headline and first paragraph (shown right) played up the rumour to suggest that travellers were somehow implicated in Demko's death.

The Leatherhead Advertiser's rival, the Surrey Advertiser, also reported the alleged traveller link the following day, in paragraph 18 of its front page story. But neither its headline nor its opening paragraph mentioned it.

Bugle complaint

The Bugle's editor, John Dwyer, complained to the PCC that the presentation and emphasis of the Leatherhead Advertiser's report breached the spirit and the letter of PCC Editors' Code of Practice.

The Bugle asked whether the paper could justify the prominence given to what appeared to be a minor aspect of the case, bearing in mind the sensitivity and likely distress or hurt feelings it might cause. Was this headline and intro a carefully considered summary of the most important point in the court case being reported? Or was it a flimsy pretext for a cheap, populist dig at an unpopular minority? The Bugle suggested it was the latter.

Although the Leatherhead Advertiser's story carried the name of one of its own reporters, the copy was a barely re-edited version of a report from a news agency, Central News (CN). The paper's editor-in-chief, Ian Carter, said he had examined CN's copy and concluded that he stood by 'his' paper's reporting.

The Bugle's editor insisted, however, not just that the 'Gypsy angle' to the story didn't stand up, but that both the paper's own report and the CN report it was based on showed that it didn't stand up: "The paper therefore not only has no business presenting this fragment of gossip as if it's the truth.

"It has an obligation to the Gypsy community not to slur it gratuitously in the presentation of the story, and to the reading public who have paid for this travesty to be properly informed about a matter of public interest. That particularly includes members of the reading public who might skim through the paper reading the heads and intros."

The PCC supported the Bugle's view. As a result, today the paper publishes the following under the heading – 'Travellers – an apology':
"In an article headlined 'Travellers linked to Demko murder case' (29 January 2009), we stated that members of the travelling community may have been involved in the murder of Matthew Demko. Michael Jordan - the accused party who has now been acquitted of the crime - did state in court that a police officer involved in the investigation had claimed that members of the travelling community had been in the area. We wish to make clear that while the case is still unsolved, using the word traveller in the headline was too strong for the article. We are happy to clarify this position and apologise for any offence caused."

COMMENT

No one earns brownie points for standing up for Gypsies. They're deeply unpopular among the majority settled population. But that's all the more reason for someone to give them a fair crack of the whip.

The Leatherhead Advertiser sees no reason to do so. Given the chance, it will lean over backwards to score cheap shots at the Gypsies' expense. It thinks its readers will nod in agreement as their prejudices are confirmed and decide that money on the next issue will be well spent.

That's far from certain. Three years ago Mole Valley Council threatened to evict Gypsies from land they had bought at River Lane. Hundreds of local parents whose children shared schools with the travellers signed a local petition asking that the Gypsies be left alone.

To its then credit, not only did the Leatherhead Advertiser report this, it also felt obliged to print letters supporting the Gypsies from named individuals. The brave anti-Gypsy letter writers tended to sign themselves 'name and address supplied'. Nevertheless, there are enough such people to delude the Leatherhead Advertiser and others like it that they're on to a circulation winner.

So let’s state the obvious. If a Gypsy commits a crime, that doesn't mean all Gypsies are criminals. It only means that that person is a criminal, and no one can draw any conclusions from that about his or her family, their friends, workmates or anyone else who knows them. They are entitled to treatment as individuals, not written off as members of a group.

Even if half the Gypsy population had criminal records – which plainly isn't true – that wouldn't entitle anyone to blacken the other half as criminals as well, any more than you could draw similar conclusions after the conviction of anyone who is Irish, black, Asian, Jewish, gay, female or old.

The presumption of innocence still, just, separates this country from the world's tyrannies. Everyone, no matter how disreputable, no matter what they look like or how they dress or talk, is entitled to it.

What is more, no one can point to any crime – theft, rape, murder – and produce a shred of evidence that that offence is unique to Gypsies. You might argue that prejudice against travellers, Gypsies, whoever, isn't about who they are or where they come from – it's about their way of life. They pay hardly anything into the state in taxes and live off welfare, topped up with petty thieving, the gossip runs.

There may be some who live like that. But this is hardly a lifestyle confined to travellers. The papers are full of non-Gypsies who've been up to no good. Here, on the other hand, is a handy tip for the petty criminal fraternity. If you want to do a little casual housebreaking, choose an area near where Gypsies were camping. The hue and cry is likely to leave you untouched.

It's also likely, however, that the crims have thought of it already. But let's also remember that, in this case, we're talking merely about someone who told someone else that there may have been travellers near an area where someone was murdered. All things considered, it's not enough to bother telling your mates in the pub, never mind putting at the top of a page purporting to be a serious report of a murder story.

So let's also remember that a free Press is another thing that, in theory, separates us from tyranny. But too often our Press sacrifices its duty to be fair and accurate on the altar of commercial advantage.

Here the Leatherhead Advertiser provided a textbook example of the habit of today's local and national press to throw their weight about and abuse free speech. Free speech is precious but it's also limited. It gives nobody the right falsely to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

Local newspapers are in crisis, they tell us. But note too that the newspaper groups have historic profit margins three or four times those of Tesco, and they are cutting local newsrooms to keep them that way. If their circulations and ad revenues are falling, it's because public trust in newspapers has never been lower.

And is that a surprise? The Leatherhead Advertiser always uses agency copy for big trials. The agencies know any copy that panders to anti-Gypsy prejudice is catnip. The paper passes it to the subs and they put one of their reporters' names on it. The subs give it a headline and intro that will stir people up. They pay no heed to the minorities they offend, and then get on with finding something cheap for next week's issue. It's custom and practice. It's always been like that.

Just as plainly, the public have are seeing through it.

What do you think? Tell the editor.

Report smeared Mole Valley schools

Leatherhead Advertiser fails to measure up to head teacher's complaint

July 5, 2006:

One of the Leatherhead Advertiser's (LAd's) silliest recent headlines was its June 15 splash, 'Schools hit by shocking crime figures'. Using information Surrey Police provided under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, Nicola Rider's front page story noted 128 'crimes' allegedly committed 'in or around' Mole Valley Schools from April 2005 to this March.
A table inside listed the incidents against schools which included Therfield, Eastwick Infants, Manor House, St Andrews and Fetcham County First. (Presumably the Howard of Effingham School is not crime free: but it comes under Guildford, not Mole Valley.)
Rider lists several (alleged) assaults, 16 occasioning actual bodily harm, many (alleged) robberies - distinguished from 'theft' by force or the threat of it - and two reports of arson. Heavy stuff. But she also notes that 71 'well over half' of the 'incidents' listed were thefts and burglaries reported to police, from 'theft from bicycles to items from cars parked outside the schools.'
Of the total 31 resulted in either a caution or a prosecution. These included two cases of knife carrying and two cases of cannabis possession, all four resulting in cautions, not prosecutions. That leaves 27 incidents, a fifth, which might have produced a prosecution.

Yes but how many were banged up?

The Bugle decided to find out how many of these cases resulted in charges or prosecutions. At first we were unsuccessful, and Rider told the Bugle on Friday (June 30) that the police couldn't tell her what had happened either.
Since we published our original report on June 29 it turns out that this isn't strictly true.
On close inspection, the table as the LAd published it uses the word 'charged'. In a list of 128 offences, it occurs once. And that, as it happens, was an assault on the police. So one angle the LAd could have used was why, among so many alleged offences, many of them violent, so few charges resulted.
Surrey Police has now provided the Bugle with the information on which the Leatherhead Advertiser based its story. One table, headed 'Detections, lists not one but 11 charges in connection with the offences, along with 20 cautions, eight 'DNP' (detected, no proceedings), and one 'TIC' (taken into consideration - the suspect given the chance of admitting other similar offences).
The LAd's knowledge of the full list might explain why it didn't pursue the lack of charges but concentrated instead on the idea that Mole Valley's young were on a crime rampage. The trouble is the copy didn't support that idea. And Surrey Police have told the Bugle that even the extra 10 charges fail to stand the story up. Given the large number of schools covered (50) over a wide area, the tally of offences did not, the force believes, go anywhere near justifying the description 'shocking crime figures'. As Mole Valley Borough Inspector Gemma Morris told the paper: 'Even in a low crime area such as Mole Valley crimes will inevitably happen in and around schools.' The paper, quite within its rights, decided not to use this quote.
Nor did the paper present any evidence that the schools were 'hit' or even, come to that, mildly perturbed. After all, none of the eight schools singled out in the report had been contacted.

Readers misled over Beare Green incident

To begin with trivia, the Bugle's barrack room lawyer has a problem with the 'c' word. It's arguable that, for many offences, it's for a court to decide whether a 'crime' has been committed. Jo's 'theft' may turn out to be Annie's mistake or absent-mindedness. The police, however, note that there is such a thing as an 'unsolved crime', and there are such things as 'absolute' crimes and prima facie evidence.
So let's move on. Rider's report noted that the figures 'highlighted drug crimes', and singled out one school as follows: 'A person was arrested but not prosecuted for possession of cannabis at the Weald Primary School, Beare Green.'
In last week's LAd (June 29), Weald head teacher Cathy Ridge writes: 'This gives the immediate impression that someone connected to the school was arrested. This is incorrect. The incident occurred in the grounds late one night when a group of youngsters illegally entered the grounds and were subsequently arrested.'
But wait for her killer sentence: 'The school was closed for the summer holidays at the time.'
Perhaps this is why, unusually, the LAd's editor, Katherine Newton, replied to the letter. Less surprising is that the reply doesn't even address this part of the head's complaint, and less surprising still is the paper's refusal to admit that its stunt yielded nothing to support either the story or its treatment.

Questions to answer

So the Bugle phoned Nicola Rider to find out more. Her answer to the Bugle's assertion that the LAd's trawl of 'crimes' is revealed as merely a list of 'reported incidents' is that the 'crimes' definition was Surrey Police's, not the LAd's. Rider says the LAd had asked for a list of 'crimes' in or around Mole Valley schools and the long table in the 15 June issue is the list Surrey Police provided.
Asked why the paper did not address Cathy Ridge's complaint, Rider says that, though she and the editor had consulted throughout the writing and editing of the story, the letters page is always a matter for the editor, who had written the reply without consulting her.
Had Newton 'like all of us, overworked and underpaid' spoken to Rider in more detail, the reply to Cathy Ridge's letter might have pointed out in the paper's own favour that, in her original FoI query, Rider had asked the police to make a distinction between incidents linked directly to the schools 'involving staff or students' and those merely in their vicinity. Rider says Surrey Police told her it did not have enough detailed information to make that distinction.
Indeed so. In a covering note the police documents stress, in bold type, that 'although an incident is reported as a 'crime' at a particular school it may not actually involve the school but may have occurred on/nearby the premises out of hours and may not be associated with the running of the school at all.'
But Rider's copy played down this aspect of the story. Near the end she quotes a police spokesman's view that, if incidents happen near schools, this doesn't mean that either victims or offenders have any connection to the school. Cathy Ridge's letter suggests that this wasn't enough to balance the story.
Rider says the story showed Mole Valley schools in a good light. That is hardly true of the headline or a first paragraph that reads 'More than 100 crimes occurred in or around schools in Mole Valley in less than a year.'
It is true, however, that the headline and the story's position in the newspaper are the sole responsibility of the editor, not the reporter, and that Rider's copy may have been altered after she submitted it.

Sadly-judged response

But the really big question is why the paper singled out schools for this treatment. Had it chosen to, the LAd might have unearthed much valuable information about the average Mole Valley citizen's propensity to crime if it had asked for the figures in or around, say, public houses, petrol stations or, for that matter, newspaper offices.
But the LAd chose schools. Rider says that was because everyone is involved in them. They either have children or grandchildren in them or they work in them. And there had also been a rash of national stories about schools and knives.
Put another way, the LAd jumped aboard a tabloid-fuelled folk panic about knife crime. The LAd is prone to such dementia. Its April 27 splash, also by Rider, ran, 'Knife wielding thugs bring terror to low crime streets'.
But even if Rider's June 15 story can be dismissed as an aberration in a thin news week, two further questions remain. One is why, until this week, no-one had sprung to the schools' defence. The second is why this week's response to Cathy Ridge's letter didn't measure up to her complaint.

There are real villains out there

Indeed, it fell miserably short of what readers are entitled to expect, namely to be treated as grown-ups who understand that no-one can run a newspaper without making mistakes or errors of judgement. And when it happens, as it did on June 15, the LAd should be big enough to own up. It isn't.
The paper should be congratulated on using the FoI but since like all newspapers the LAd has great power it should choose its targets with care, preferably someone its own size. It didn't.
Children and young people make up a quarter of the population. They may not vote, or buy newspapers or petrol, but they deserve respect. Instead the Leatherhead Advertiser trivialises their concerns, demonises and undermines them.
It's not as if there aren't plenty of stories about. The paper reported nothing about last week's childrens' earth summit at County Hall (See St Nicholas's link on our front page), or about Surrey's efforts to combat a tide of mental ill-health among our young (also on the front page), to say nothing of the continuing scandal of road deaths and injuries among that age group. Instead of smearing schoolchildren, might we know how many Mole Valley drivers had at one time or another injured or killed them? Might we investigate how the casualty figures are compiled and how far those figures are from reality? And may we know how many prosecutions all this real but sidelined violence resulted in? We think we should be told.

29 June 2006, updated 5 July 2006