This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/may/18/the-queen-brexit-and-the-sun-did-the-lady-protest-too-much
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Queen, Brexit and the Sun: did the lady protest too much? | The Queen, Brexit and the Sun: did the lady protest too much? |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| So, as has been widely expected, the Sun has been censured by the press regulator for its headline “Queen backs Brexit”. | So, as has been widely expected, the Sun has been censured by the press regulator for its headline “Queen backs Brexit”. |
| And, also as expected, the paper’s editor, Tony Gallagher, has rejected the decision by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). | And, also as expected, the paper’s editor, Tony Gallagher, has rejected the decision by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). |
| The problem for Gallagher was using the term “Brexit” because, at the time the Queen is said to have spouted her anti-European Union views, it had not been coined. | The problem for Gallagher was using the term “Brexit” because, at the time the Queen is said to have spouted her anti-European Union views, it had not been coined. |
| Indeed, at that time, the government had not even arranged the EU referendum. How then could the Queen have backed a British pull-out from the EU? | Indeed, at that time, the government had not even arranged the EU referendum. How then could the Queen have backed a British pull-out from the EU? |
| Clearly, that was the logic applied by Ipso’s complaints committee. But I cannot shake off the feeling that the Palace amended its original complaint in order to avoid getting a negative Ipso verdict. | Clearly, that was the logic applied by Ipso’s complaints committee. But I cannot shake off the feeling that the Palace amended its original complaint in order to avoid getting a negative Ipso verdict. |
| By narrowing the complaint from one about the story to one about the headline, it knew it was on firmer ground. | By narrowing the complaint from one about the story to one about the headline, it knew it was on firmer ground. |
| I am not suggesting that the Palace received any advice from Ipso to amend its complaint. But along the way a royal aide appears to have realised the implications of taking issue with a story with a double source (even if anonymised). | I am not suggesting that the Palace received any advice from Ipso to amend its complaint. But along the way a royal aide appears to have realised the implications of taking issue with a story with a double source (even if anonymised). |
| But Gallagher wasn’t happy about the headline ruling anyway. In his Radio 4 Today programme interview, he was unrepentant. He relied on the fact that his Brexit headlined was qualified by a sub-head referring to it being a “bombshell claim”. | But Gallagher wasn’t happy about the headline ruling anyway. In his Radio 4 Today programme interview, he was unrepentant. He relied on the fact that his Brexit headlined was qualified by a sub-head referring to it being a “bombshell claim”. |
| That interview was interesting. He managed to make clear his rejection of Ipso’s ruling while embracing his paper’s membership of Ipso. | That interview was interesting. He managed to make clear his rejection of Ipso’s ruling while embracing his paper’s membership of Ipso. |
| He also took the opportunity to stress that he knew more than he published, that the sources were impeccable and that he would do it all over again. “In all conscience,” he said, “we don’t accept we made a mistake.” | |
| Gallagher stopped well short of being critical of Ipso and of self-regulation and shrugged off the paper’s previous ruling (about the inaccuracy of its “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” story). | Gallagher stopped well short of being critical of Ipso and of self-regulation and shrugged off the paper’s previous ruling (about the inaccuracy of its “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” story). |
| Gallagher’s careful answers were similar to the measured tone of his paper’s editorial, in which the Sun reiterated its belief that the Queen does back Brexit. | Gallagher’s careful answers were similar to the measured tone of his paper’s editorial, in which the Sun reiterated its belief that the Queen does back Brexit. |
| It thought it “fair enough” to have published both the original story and the headline. “We stand by all of it”, said the Sun, and continued: | It thought it “fair enough” to have published both the original story and the headline. “We stand by all of it”, said the Sun, and continued: |
| “We respect Ipso and understand why the Queen complained. She was furious at the claim she had taken sides in a political dispute. But the idea she keeps all her thoughts to herself is nonsense.” | “We respect Ipso and understand why the Queen complained. She was furious at the claim she had taken sides in a political dispute. But the idea she keeps all her thoughts to herself is nonsense.” |
| In conclusion, the Sun advanced a familiar “right to know” and “public interest” justification for its story: | In conclusion, the Sun advanced a familiar “right to know” and “public interest” justification for its story: |
| “A newspaper wouldn’t be a newspaper if it got wind of such views so clearly in the public’s interest to read and didn’t publish them.” | “A newspaper wouldn’t be a newspaper if it got wind of such views so clearly in the public’s interest to read and didn’t publish them.” |
| It published Ipso’s verdict across the bottom of page 2, “Ipso rules against Sun’s Queen headline”, as it is required to do under the rules of its contract with the regulator. | It published Ipso’s verdict across the bottom of page 2, “Ipso rules against Sun’s Queen headline”, as it is required to do under the rules of its contract with the regulator. |
| Ipso’s critics will argue that the paper, having been found “guilty” of running an inaccurate front page headline, should have been forced to run the ruling on page 1. But it did carry a page 1 trail (and I understand the size of the typeface was agreeable to Ipso). | Ipso’s critics will argue that the paper, having been found “guilty” of running an inaccurate front page headline, should have been forced to run the ruling on page 1. But it did carry a page 1 trail (and I understand the size of the typeface was agreeable to Ipso). |
| Note also the reality of this whole affair. Whether or not the headline was justified and whether or not the story was entirely accurate, is there anyone across Britain who doesn’t now believe that the Queen is none too happy with Britain’s membership of the European Union? | Note also the reality of this whole affair. Whether or not the headline was justified and whether or not the story was entirely accurate, is there anyone across Britain who doesn’t now believe that the Queen is none too happy with Britain’s membership of the European Union? |
| The Sun appears to have reflected the truth of the Queen’s covert political viewpoint. That may not have been the case if the Palace had failed to make an official complaint. | The Sun appears to have reflected the truth of the Queen’s covert political viewpoint. That may not have been the case if the Palace had failed to make an official complaint. |
| I wonder, on reflection, if the monarch’s advisers got it wrong. Surely, the lady did protest too much? | I wonder, on reflection, if the monarch’s advisers got it wrong. Surely, the lady did protest too much? |