Maeve O’Reilly Fact sheet Unit 1

Regulatory Bodies
Regulatory bodies is an organisation appointed to maintain national standards for
qualifications and to ensure consistent compliance with them. They maintain and set
rules and standards.

IPSO
https://www.ipso.co.uk/

The IPSO, also known as the Independent Press

Standards Organisation, is an independent
regulator based on setting rules and standards for
magazine companies to follow. They hold
magazines and newspaper companies
accountable for their actions; they also protect
individuals' rights, uphold high standards of
journalism and maintain freedom for the press.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation was started on the 8th of September
2014 to replace the PCC also known as the Press Complaints Commission after the
windup of the PCC which was the main regulatory body of the press since 1990. The
IPSO was set up because of the wake of the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking and
other forms of press misconduct. The Leveson Report recommended a new form of
regulation, more independent of the newspapers and publishers whom it was
supposed to regulate. The current person who runs the IPSO is Charlotte Dewar
who has been chief executive since 2020 and was previously the head of operations
for the IPSO since 2015.

How they do it
The IPSO make sure that magazines follow the editors code, investigate complaints
that may breach the editors code, they make magazines publish corrections or
adjustments to their magazines if they breach the editors code, They monitor press
standards and have the membered magazines companies issue an annual
statement about how they follow the code, they investigate serious breaches of
standards and can find up to 1 million pounds in cases where they are particularly
serious and systemic, they run a 24 hour anti harassment advice line, they run a
arbrition scheme to settle legal disputes, they give advice and train journalists and
editors they also offer them a whistleblowing hotline for the journalists who feel
pressured in acting not in line with the Editor’s Code.
They look into the magazines or pieces of media which the company in question has
released and check it for anything that breached the Editor’s Code. If the code
breached was extremely serious then that company would be fined 1 million pounds.
They offer journalists training, advice and help if they are feeling pressured to break
the code they do this by offering a phone number on their website which could help
these journalists with whatever they are going through. They monitor the rules and
standards of the editors code by considering complaints that may have been
publications and where they might have breached the Editor’s Code; they also
assess annual publisher statements which set out how publishers approach editorial
standards and comply with the Editor’s Code. IPSO analysis complaints received to
identify trends in coverage which may raise standards concerns.

Editor’s Code of Practice

The Editor’s Code of Practice is a set of rules and guidelines that magazine and
newspaper companies have agreed to accept. It sets the standards for these
companies to be held accountable by the IPSO. This is part of the contract that the
IPSO and the company in question that the IPSO regulates. The editors code of
practice is administered by the Editor’s code of practice committee which includes
the 10 editors and five lays including the chairman and chief executive of the IPSO.
Code application

Code 1 Accuracy
The purpose of this code is to stop the press from publishing inaccurate, misleading
or distorted information or images that include headlines not supported by the text. A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected promptly
and in some cases a fair apology must be published for whatever was published.
The press while free to editorialise and campaign must distinguish between
comment, conjecture and fact. The party must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of defamation.

A magazine company would have to make sure that everything they publish is
accurate and not misleading as this could breach this code of conduct and result in a
fine or being sued for defamation against another party involved. If the company has
published a significant inaccuracy it must release a public formal apology for
whatever they had published and they must fairly distinguish between comment,
conjecture and fact.

Grazia would have to make sure none of their magazines or published media have
any inaccuracies or false information or they could get fined or sued for defamation
as they would be breaching the editorial codes. Being a gossip based magazine
brand they would need to make sure that all the information they have received is
accurate, reliable and from a trustworthy source because if they didn’t then they
might publish something that could result in a lawsuit and have to release a public
apology for what they have done.

Code 2 Privacy
The purpose of this code is to protect the private lives and information of every
person. Editors will have to justify any intrusions into any individual's private lives
without consent. When considering a person's reasonable expectations, an account
will be taken if the person or company owns public disclosure and if it is already
public domain already. You cannot photograph someone without their consent even if
they are in a public or private place.

A magazine company would have to protect the private information of their brands,
models, workers and partnerships or they could get fined or sued causing damage to
their reputation and they would have to release a formal apology if the situation is
drastically bad. A magazine company would need consent from everybody involved
of the photoshoots and those being published in the magazine they would need to do
this because they could get fined

Grazia would have to protect and not publicly disclose a person, brands, models,
workers or partnerships of Grazia. They must get consent from the models involved
with the photoshoot and the people involved with the gossip articles if they do not
respect the consent of these people then Grazia could get fined or sued by a person
or a brand working with or involved with Grazia this could affect their reputation and
in some cases they would need to release a public apology to the person involved in
the breach of privacy. However, if a brand, person, model or worker had made the
thing they are suing about public domain then that person would be held accountable
for their actions against Grazia.

Code 3 Harassment
The purpose of this code is to stop journalists from using intimidation, Harassment or
persistent pursuit. A journalist must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing
or photographing a person once asked to desist; they must also not remain on a
person or companies property once asked to leave and they must not follow that
person. If requested they must identify themselves and the people/company they
represent. Editors must ensure that this is followed by those working for them and
take care not to use non compliant material from other sources.

A magazine company would have to make sure that their journalists stop persisting
with questions, calling or photographing as the journalist and the company that they
work for could be held accountable for the action of the journalists. The journalist of
this magazine company would also have to evacuate the premises of the person or
company if they are asked to leave and they must not follow the person they are
trying to interview because this could again come back to the company resulting in
damage to the companies reputation.

Grazia would have to make sure that their gossip journalists do not persist in
pestering the person that they are interviewing they must also stop photographing
the models involved with the photoshoots if they do not feel comfortable if they
ignore that then Grazia could suffer from damage to their reputation resulting in less
magazines being sold and brands being unwilling to help Grazia.

Judgement
Jill complained to the IPSO because take a break breached code 1 accuracy in their
magazine by using the headline the SNAKE and the FAKE. The article was about a
woman who was getting harassed by her friend online but take a break named the
article “She hated me for being happy/Jealous friend FAKED a fiancée to STALK
ME” resulting in her friend faking a marriage and harassing her friend and the friends
family online.

00236-20 Sharp v Take a Break

This ruling is about Take a Break. Take breaks investigated for

ASA
https://www.asa.org.uk/

The ASA, aka The Advertising Standards Authority, is a company that responds to
concerns and complaints from consumers and businesses. They also take action to
ban advertisements which could cause offence to people or the public. The purpose
of the ASA is to make sure that advertisements are responsible for the public and so
the company that released that advertisement is held accountable for their actions.

ASA was first founded in 1962 as a result of magazines being allowed

advertisements. The industry came together- agencies, media and advertisers - to
form CAP also known as the Committee of advertising practice and produced the
first British code of advertising practice. In 1962 CAP created the ASA as the
independent advertising regulator under the newly formed code. In 1974 the ASA
was not responsible for collecting the levy itself but its independence was assured
and the levy provided enough funding for the ASA to promote itself to the public. In
1988 the control of misleading advertising regulations provided the ASA with
backing from the Fair trading or the OFT this enabled the ASA for the first time to
refer advertisers who made persistent false claims and refused to work with the OFT
this gave the ASA the ability to refer problem advertisers for unfair and misleading
advertising but today they would be refer by the consumer protection of 2008. The
2008 regulations replaced the control of misleading advertisements. In 2004 after
more than forty years of successful self-regulation of non-broadcast ads the ASA
and the CAP system gained responsibility over TV and radio ads. In 2009 they had
worked with ofcom to counter VOD or videos online services producing
advertisements that could be unfair or misleading. In 2010 CAP announced that ASA
would have more control over advertising online now affecting online website
advertisements.

How they do it
When they are checking out complaints about advertisements they focus on
producing a proportionate and fair process for everybody involved in the accusation
they will report on one complaint placed against a company. They base their
judgement on if the advertisement involved actually breached any of the rules. They
accept complaints made by the public or industries. They
also protect the anonymity of anybody involved in the case unless there is a good
reason to do so and if they have their permission, if the person who complained is a
worker of a rival company to the accused company then they must name who they
work for. When doing this they consider what harm has or might have occurred, they
balance the risk of taking action versus inaction, consider the impact of their
intervention of the company's advertisement and they consider what would be
proportionate to the problem being tackled. They usually solve issues in a couple of
days.

Capcodes
Code application

Misleading advertising
The purpose of this code is to make sure that companies do not mislead the public
about their products and content. Exaggerations or pufferys are unlikely to be taken
as misleading the readers of the product such as a magazine. Marketing
communications must not mislead the consumer by leaving out or excluding
something from the subject they are talking about whether it be in the magazine or
on the front of the magazine.

A magazine company must make sure that they do not mislead the consumers of
their magazine with their advertisements. They must avoid getting information from
unreliable sources about the brands which they will be advertising in their magazine.
They must also not exclude any information that could be relevant to the
advertisement so a magazine company would have to get accurate information from
a reliable source for the products or content they would be advertising. They can use
exaggerations or pufferys on their advertisements as these are unlikely to be taken
as misleading the audience.

Grazia being fashion and gossip magazine must not mislead the readers of the
advertisements in the magazine as breaching the misleading advertising code could
result in a fine, prosecution and possible imprisonment so Grazia must avoid using
information from unreliable sources such as the public or competitors of a brand of
the magazines they are advertising as these people could leave out key information
in the case. Grazia can not make a brand which they are advertising look better then
what they really are but they can use exaggerations or pufferys such as “best quality”
because this could not be seen as misleading the readers of Grazia.

Harm and Offence

Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious
or widespread offence. They must avoid causing offence on the grounds of age,
disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and marital status, pregnancy,
race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Marketing communications must
not cause fear or distress to anyone unless it is justified and even if it is justified then
it must be excessive in that product.

A magazine company must not advertise adverts that could cause serious or
widespread offence to people from different walks of life such as age, disability,
gender, gender reassignment, marriage and marital status, pregnancy, race, religion
or belief, sex and sexual orientation. A magazine company must avoid creating
advertisements that could cause distress or fear and if they do then it must be
justified. The company must not use shocking claims or images to attract audiences
as this could result in a fine or a prosecution.

Grazia must not allow adverts that could cause serious harm and offence to groups
of people of any age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and marital
status, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Grazia must
not include anything that could cause distress of fear to the audience unless it is
justified. They must avoid using shocking claims and imagery to attract readers as
this could result in legal issues.

Privacy
Marketers must not unfairly portray or refer to a member of the public in an offensive
way unless the person in question has given the marketer written permission to do
so. Marketers are urged to obtain written permission from the person that they would
be talking about. Marketers must also avoid using images and private information
unless given permission to do so. They can refer to people with public profiles as
long as it has something to do with a book, film or an article. If it doesn’t then they
would have to receive permission from the public figure and the public figure would
have to know what they would be involved in.

Magazine companies must not unfairly portray or refer to members of the public in
an offensive way for their advertisements unless that person has given the magazine
company written permission to do so. The magazine company would be urged to
obtain permission from everybody involved with their advertisements because if they
do not then they could get sued or fined for breaching the privacy code. They can
only refer or use to public figures in their advertisements if they have permission
from that public figure or if that public figure was in a book, film or article if they were
not then the public figure must be informed on what the advertisement would involve
about them.

Judgement
ASA ruling on Steven Thomas
An advertisement was published by Steven Thomas about the vaccination and the
yellow card scheme. His advertisement said that there wasn’t any research
happening with the vaccine which would deter people from getting it. The
advertisement was misleading as the yellow card system misled people about how
many people died from Covid. Steven Thomas used information from the MHRA
yellow card website which reports daily. Steven Thomas was told to be more careful
when he released advertisements that could mislead.

This is useful for my magazine as it shows that Grazia should not mislead the
audience of Grazia with false facts from websites and untrustworthy sources. Grazia
must also refrain from misleading people about their products they must be
advertising.