A small victory, admittedly against the Guardian which should know better than to write the sort of rubbish they did back in August.
Read the original complaint here
The article has been amended to remove all reference to “genetic modification” (including by changing the headline) and to correct a few other errors. The following footnote has been added to the online version
• This article was amended on 18 October 2011. The first paragraph of the original article, as translated from the French, referred to “genetically modified” cannabis. The Guardian understands the cultivation of stronger forms of cannabis as described in the article would be the result of methods such as selective breeding. The reference to genetically modified cannabis in the article, as well as in our headline, has therefore been removed. A quote by Superintendent François Thierry in the third paragraph has been replaced with reported speech to convey his main point about an increase in the potency of cannabis — this is to avoid an ambiguity in the original quote that referred also to synthetic cannabis (though rendered by the Guardian as GM cannabis), which contains no THC. The sentence on how the Dutch may consider reclassifying cannabis has been amended to clarify that this relates to the strongest concentrations of cannabis.
In addition the following will run in the print edition and on the PCC website
An article about new strains of cannabis, as translated from Le Monde, referred to “genetically modified” cannabis, as did our own headline on the piece. Guardian Weekly understands the cultivation of stronger forms of cannabis as described in the article would be the result of methods such as selective breeding, rather the genetic modification. The article also reported the Dutch may consider reclassifying cannabis. To clarify; this refers to the strongest types of the drug.
————-
Edit – It is the “Press Complaints Commission”, PCC, not the IPCC as I originally wrote and as Peter Reynolds pointed out in his comment below. I’ve amended this blog, including the title.
I totally disagree, Derek. It is not a small victory, it is a significant victory! It is time the press are held accountable for their accuracy in reporting news. One thing is facts presented as opinions, and another is opinions presented as facts!
Are you aware of the flagrantly inaccurate and blatantly cynical headline of this tabloid:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2053486/One-cannabis-joint-bring-schizophrenia.html
I’m of the opinion that one shouldn’t blame the tabloids, but those who consume (buy/read)them. After all, the supply does not create its own demand. However, in the name of accountability, Dr Matt Jones, the lead author of the study, or somebody at the University of Bristol should do what you have done!
Hi Gart – yeah I’m aware of that and things are, lets say, “ticking over”.
The DM has very badly misrepresented the study and the Press dep at Bristol Uni is very unhappy about it. The study did not use cannabis anyway.
More about this one later, but for not check out CLEAR http://clear-uk.org/the-daily-mail-addicted-to-lies-and-misinformation-about-cannabis/
Derek
Good work Derek. I think its worth doing, not least because you nowe have a precedent to refer to when others use the GM mistake.
Big well done once more Derek, this is great work!
Excellent news Derek!! Just shows that persistence and truth ultimately pay off! 🙂
Splendid news; I’m just a little disappointed that they uphold a complaint against the Guardian but have yet to rap the knuckles of the Daily Mail. Still, only a matter of time I hope.
It’s PCC Derek, not IPCC. That’s something to do with the rozzers I think.
Well done. It’s another “resolved”. We’re still waiting for an “upheld” though where the PCC actually tells the newspaper they’re in breach of the code. In nearly 40 complaints now, the only progress is by agreement. Whatever the evidence, however blatant and absurd the inaccuracy, when it comes down to the wire the PCC always sides with its own.
That’s why it’s not fit for purpose and why I am working hard on my evidence for the Leveson Inquiry. I believe in freedom of the press but the PCC is a sham. Its purpose is to protect the press and provide a smokescreen so that editors can publish whatever sensationalism, lies and misinformation they choose.
My only contact with the IPCC were in respect of a local newspaper in the North West that had reported as fact that GM cannabis existed. My complaint resulted in a retraction being printed. It seems the IPCC are happy to back us on the GM front.
Gart I spoke to Dr Matt Jones today and a very nice chap he is. You can see the outcome on the CLEAR site. It’s unrealistic though to expect him or any scientist to take on the media. They all need funding and they all operate on a compromise between integrity and cash. That’s why we as campaigners need to take up this burden. CLEAR holds the media to account on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION that untruths are published. What would help enormously would be if people like you would join in. The complaint templates that Derek and I use are on the CLEAR website.