Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
28 March 2023
I’ve often thought that life at the parish council is a microcosm of events at national or county level.
At national level, Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry and Sir Elton John are suing the Daily Mail for hacking their phones. Now I don’t quite put myself in this league; as far as I am aware, the Bucks Free Press has not hacked my phone. However, as I said in my blog of 11 March, the BFP has published inaccurate and defamatory articles about me, with inaccurate and defamatory headlines, both online and in the printed paper.
My husband was incensed and said they just can’t get away with that. So, I complained to the editor of the BFP. When I got no response, I complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
But before I continue with the story, I thought it would be helpful to set out some background about the Bucks Free Press.
About 10 years ago, I think it's fair to say that the BFP was a campaigning local paper. It had a full-time editor who campaigned for Wycombe hospital to retain its A&E. It had reporters who had the time to investigate what local authorities and local MPs were doing and to hold them to account. It wrote articles exposing what was really happening in Childrens’ Services, Social Services, education and health for example.
And then the BFP got taken over by a company called Newsquest.
Newsquest had 28 million readers on-line a month and 6 million readers of print a week. Newsquest is one of the largest media regional companies in the country with over 200 papers and magazines. It is a billion-pound company which in turn is owned by a multi –billion company in the US.
Roy Greenslade, who was professor of journalism at City University, and wrote for the Guardian and the Evening Standard, said of Newsquest:-
“It is a profit-seeking company that does not care about journalistic quality.
As long as the paper comes out every day, it has little interest in the content. Its managers - whether in Britain or in the United States, where its parent company, Gannett is based - view editorial as an expensive necessity to ensure there is something between the all-important adverts.”
Over the years, the resources of local newspapers, including the BFP, have been cut. The BFP now has no full-time editor; the editor and deputy editor share their time with publications all over Bucks and Berks. The same goes for the BFP’s four reporters.
I understand that, as part of the Government’s support for struggling local newspapers, the BBC funded (and perhaps still funds) one of the reporters on the BFP (owned by a multi-billion company in the US).
The BFP now rarely investigates or holds anyone accountable. Local MPs are not held to account. On the contrary, they are given half a page of free publicity on a regular basis in the BFP. Nor is Bucks Council held to account or any of its Cabinet. Nor does the BFP hold anyone else to account who exercises power and/ or spends substantial public money in Bucks.
All the BFP seems to do is copy and paste press releases from BC, the police, NHS, and the grammar schools.
In 2016, Dave King, the then Editor- in Chief of the BFP, wrote an editorial which was syndicated in Newquest papers across the South East. He urged people to help fight off the “new challenges to press freedom in the UK” and extolled the merits of IPSO, the press industry’s own regulator rather than Impress, the one set up by the Government by Royal Charter.
This is the same industry regulated body which is now considering my case. We will see what it does to redress the balance of power between a multi-billion pound company like Newsquest and a parish councillor like myself – who incidentally, unlike councillors on Bucks Council, does not get paid for her services.
So far, things aren’t going well.
IPSO referred my case to the BFP but all the BFP was prepared to do was make some small amendments to the article it put online over 3 weeks ago.
Unfortunately, when I checked the article, the amendments themselves were inaccurate and defamatory.
The BFP ignored my request for a public apology and compensation (to be paid to charity) although the editor said she would be happy to investigate the allegations I had made about HPC’s misuse of Council funds.
So I went back to the BFP. I pointed out BFP’s inaccuracies (again) and asked for the apology and compensation (again). I noted the BFP’s interest in the misuse of council funds and said I would be happy to provide further information. However, at the moment, I said I wouldn't trust the BFP to report it accurately.
In response, the BFP said “with regard to the request for compensation and a public apology, I am afraid that this is not something that would be offered”. (Why not? I thought. The BFP’s report was inaccurate and defamatory).
The editor still thinks I have been “reprimanded” by Bucks Council (I haven’t).
But she still hopes the BFP can assist in investigating the misuse of public funds at HPC (a tempting offer but not my priority at the moment).
So, the matter has gone back to IPSO.
It’s ironic that someone like myself, who actually does try to hold public authorities to account, is treated to such an unprofessional response from the BFP.
Comments