 Poster: A snowHead
|
Yes, another helmet thread.
Some may remember that a certain David Goldsmith made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about this press article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23807368-new-call-for-helmets-in-wake-of-ski-death.do
Well, here's the verdict:
Commission’s decision in the case of
Goldsmith v Evening Standard
The Commission noted that the newspaper had not disputed the information reported by other media organisations indicating that the woman in question had died of a ruptured aorta; nor had it disputed that a helmet was thus unlikely to have protected her in this case.
The Commission considered that the omission of reference to the cause of death, coupled with the discussion of protective helmets, was likely to have misled readers into believing that the death resulted from injuries that might have been avoided by the wearing of a helmet. However, the article had not made any direct claims regarding the woman’s cause of death and it was not in dispute that, in response to the incident, the quoted individuals had made comments regarding the importance of wearing a helmet. In this context, the Commission considered it proportional for the newspaper to offer to mark its archives with the cause of the woman’s death and to publish a letter from the complainant, rather than publishing a correction on the matter. The newspaper’s offered actions were therefore considered to constitute sufficient remedial action on this point.
The complainant had also challenged the newspaper’s use of the term “experts” to refer to two individuals – Al Morgan of the Ski Club of Great Britain, and Arnie Wilson, editor of Ski + Board magazine – and had stated that their comments did not amount to the “call for new safety rules” referred to earlier in the article.
However, the Commission took the view that the term “experts” was not limited to scientific or medical experts, and that the newspaper was entitled to use the term to refer to individuals with specialist knowledge of the field. It noted that the newspaper had also quoted a representative of the Austrian Ski Federation and had referred to the fact that the Austrian authorities were considering making helmet use mandatory.
Given this, the Commission considered that readers were not likely to have been significantly misled by the initial claim that there were calls for new rules, which was, in any case, clarified by the quotations later in the article. Whilst it welcomed the newspaper’s offer to publish a letter from the complainant on the subject, the Commission therefore considered that no breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) had been established on this point, and that the newspaper had therefore offered sufficient remedial action to the complaint as a whole.
Reference No. 100826
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Who funds the press complaints commission? Taxpayers? The newspapers?
If investigating and hearing crap like that has taken money from the public purse I am pretty fecking peed off.
What a bunch of utter arsegravy. Who actually bothers to complain about something like that. Get a life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
sad to hear DG having a go at Arnie - who has been pretty stalwart in defending him in the past. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
stoatsbrother, not sure he was having a go at AW (as far as I know they are pals) but merely pointed out that he is not a safety expert. An expert might be someone who has researched the issue of helmets. Anyway, seems to me that the PCC didn't really understand the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Just seems a horrible waste of everyones time.
anyone for an Avalanch cord??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, well done DG for having a go at the yet another egregious example of scaremongering, crap reporting and the sadly endemic practice of "expert" shift. The media is not your friend...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| No, well done DG for having a go at the yet another egregious example of scaremongering, crap reporting and the sadly endemic practice of "expert" shift. The media is not your friend... |
I agree, while the complaint may seem trivial it needs to be questioned, that's why we get the newspapers we get today.
Am I alone in thinking that investigative journalism is dead and all that matters is what Katie did last night or what sensational corporate line needs to be followed today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
under a new name, Dwarf Vader, Normally I would totally agree with you in anyone having a pop at lazy, inaccurate or misleading reporting.
However in this case the report did nothing to mislead anyone's future actions and was all pretty harmless as regards 'H******', especially given the growing support for them from experts and ski bodies alike. Just a waste of taxpayers money ...
Even if that were an objective complaint, there is a touch of of irony in that the complainant questioned the use of the word 'experts' ... I guess a bit of 'research', regardless of conclusion, is enough to call yourself an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name, I agree about him having a go at the scaremongering, and indeed congratulated him on his actions on his initially rather coy thread he started on the subject a few months back. I am not sure that saying Arnie is not an expert is terribly fair though. And Agenterre is right about the intrinsic irony given some of DGs posts in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
To be fair to the paper, Arnie was merely quoted as having an opinion, and as being the editor of a magazine. Still, it kept DG off the subjects of Tamsin and avalanche chords. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PCC is funded by the papers not the taxpayer ; hence some might say paper-friendly judgments (and not real sanctions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| PJSki wrote: |
Good to see Goldsmith has been fucked up the arse by the PCC.  |
Lovely remark --- time to unsubscribe from this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| Anyway, seems to me that the PCC didn't really understand the question. |
The PCC never understands the question - that gives it a great get out to let newspapers off the hook despite printing grossly inaccurate garbage. The furore over a VisitScotland advert a couple of years ago proved to me that the PCC only understands what it wants too and it's decision in that case was more inaccurate and irrelevant to the complaint, than the original shoddy agenda driven 'journalism' was in the first place. The PCC is an absolute sham.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I understand some people seem to have a problem with Mr Goldsmith and I haven't been very complimentary to him in the past, but I do agree with him on this, the article IS completely misleading!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| anotherproblem wrote: |
| I understand some people seem to have a problem with Mr Goldsmith and I haven't been very complimentary to him in the past, but I do agree with him on this, the article IS completely misleading! |
Well I don't think it's completely misleading. The problem is that people don't apply a degree of scepticism to what they read in newspapers. As far as this article goes, if it's read carefully it's not particularly misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
PJSki how? It does imply that having a helmet would've helped in this instance and
| Quote: |
| It is also understood that in the wake of this week's tragedy and several similar accidents in the country, the Austrian authorities are reconsidering plans to make them regulation for all who use the slopes. |
In the wake of this tragedy and others similar? If that isn't implying it would've helped then someone is talking complete crap.
I tend to view everything with an air of scepticism, but you shouldn't have to. If I hadn't read this thread, I would've assumed that it was a head injury that killed the woman because it doesn't mention anywhere how she died but it does bang on about helmets, therefore it is misleading, and I believe Mr Goldsmith was entirely correct to complain about it. Viewed that way I admit that you'd have to scrutineer The Sun everyday and complain about everything that they write in that toilet paper.
I fear some people's opinions of Mr Goldsmith are clouding their judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| anotherproblem wrote: |
| PJSki how? |
In the wake of that woman's death had there been a new call for people to wear helmets? Yes there had. What was misleading was the omission of the cause of death. That was sloppy reporting. But only a lady's front bottom this nothing better to do would go to the PCC with that.
Anyway, what is ironic is that Goldsmith - holder of an out-of-date BASI qualification from c. 1975, who used that very low level credential to claim expert witness status - would call into question the opinions of two other people with much more current knowledge of skiing in general and probably helmets in particular.
Talk about hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anotherproblem, completely agree that the whole article, from the headline down, is completely misleading and insinuates heavily that wearing a helmet would have saved the poor woman.
"The 46-year-old suffered fatal injuries after she collided with a 23-year-old Dutch woman. Neither woman was wearing a helmet"
If that's not a leading statement then I don't know what is.
For the record I'm pro-helmet and wear one at all times, but I wouldn't dream of imposing my choice on anyone else and object to scare-mongering. I also don't give a fig about Mr Goldsmith and his qualifications for objecting to the article, the article is in the doc, not Mr Goldsmith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Clearly the complainant has higher expectations of the standard of journalism than I do. I think if I was to critically review almost any newspaper I could find cause for considering an approach to the PCC on slant or implied conclusions in a number of articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Clearly the complainant has higher expectations of the standard of journalism than I do. I think if I was to critically review almost any newspaper I could find cause for considering an approach to the PCC on slant or implied conclusions in a number of articles. |
Exactly. You'd have to be some kind of sad git to start taking stuff like this to the PCC when a letter to the editor is normally action enough. Goldsmith does have a history of ramping up arguments and threatening court action. But it seems with this stuff he has found a higher authority that's actually free to take his obsessive rubbish to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dr John wrote: |
| ...the article is in the doc, not Mr Goldsmith. |
In your opinion. I have decided differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.. so righteous indignation in my case has to be restricted to hypocrisy and irony 
up the back bottom by the PCC. 