* Stiff Upper Lip (wha-hey) and DON'T (bother to) Complain

...

OK, so this morning I weighed on the whole Jan Moir thing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

(Charlie Brooker is a genius...)

I read all the articles, responses, tweets, etc.

I even tweeted and Facebook'd about it myself ("You wilfully wrote snide erroneous bile & it's our fault for "misunderstanding" you? Yeah, right, Jan Moir.http://tinyurl.com/yfrm9jb")

(It was my 400th tweet, and I'd like to think it was worthwhile.)

I decided to act on a suggestion from Mr Brooker's article.

I spent an hour and a half researching and writing a complaint to the PCC explaining and demonstrating how I believed Ms Moir's article breached sections 1, 5, and 12 of their Code of Practice:

Section 1: Inaccurate and Misleading

Section 5: Intrusive on the Family's Grief

Section 12: Homophobic

In less than 10 minutes of submitting my complaint on their standard form, I received a poorly written standard template automated reply from the PCC:

Dear (my full real name)

Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.

I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.

We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.

On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and wemay not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.

Press Complaints Commission

That's exactly how it appeared, apart from actually containing my real full name in the salutation (how formal).

Punctuation, spacing, and content are all unchanged (including the use of first person 'I' throughout the letter then signing it as a faceless organisation rather than a named person...)

So there you go - that's why there's a direct specific link on the page for complaining about this very article and its author...

IT'S SO THAT THEY CAN AUTO-SEND A STANDARD TEMPLATE RESPONSE TELLING YOU TO PISS OFF.

Now, I've worked in contact and service centres for about 15 years, so I know that standard template auto-responses are efficient, consistent, and cheap (sorry, cost-effective).

However - and call me old-fashioned on this - sometimes any cold and factual standard template response, let alone a poorly written one, is just not appropriate.

Because really, what their auto-response is saying is this:

We didn't actually bother reading your complaint .

Oh, and by the way - you don't actually really have the right to be offended or to complain about articles like this when they're not about one of your family.

If you do still want to complain, you'd better have a darn good reason and be prepared to explain yourself...

So I'm supposed to just accept that poorly thought-out, poorly written, inaccurate and just sheer nasty shite like this is 'good copy' and a-ok to publish as business as usual - unless it's about one of my family?

I'm supposed to accept that what gets published in (sadly) widely circulated 'news'papers is apparently nothing to do with me - unless it's about one of my family?

I'm supposed to accept that my thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sensibilities, and opinions on the matter don't count - unless it's about one of my family?

So what was the problem with the whole Andrew Sachs phone call thing, then? Was everyone who complained one of his family?

Don't get me wrong - I loathe prank phone calls, especially when they are paraded and broadcast as "comedy".

I just can't really see what the difference is - in fact, I would even suggest that this article is worse because it is deliberately misleading, inaccurate, intrusive on grief, and homophobic.

And what about the stooshie about the Dunblane survivors article? Was everyone who complained related to them?

I completely understand the intention of their ruling - unless the family wants the PCC to get involved, any investigation could itself be intrusive.

Very honourable, very compassionate.

I get the bit about "if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this"

I'll be responding to their email redirecting them to my original complaint in which I have already clearly demonstrated how the article is misleading, inaccurate, and homophobic, none of which relates directly to the Gately family (although implying that they lied about 'drug use' immediately before death and 'insisting' that it was due to natural causes is really offensive in and of itself)

But really, it seems to me that if you want to get away with posting nasty, inaccurate, bigotted nonsense with no more punishment than having to issue a follow-up statement that says "It's not me, it's you, you all deliberately misunderstood me and twisted my words and all ganged up on me, waaah"...

... then just make sure that you include and name a person involved in it (allegedly or otherwise) and just sit back and hide behind Section 5, since any investigation of complaints without family involvement is apparently immediately dismissed as intrusive.

>:-/

.