Watchdog rules on Hull Daily Mail 'porncoder' exposé

Smith also claimed further breaches of Clause 1 of the Editors' Code, including a headline which "wrongly suggested that that he owned a 'porn business'", and coverage which "misleadingly suggested that he was personally involved in the creation of pornographic content, rather than legitimately designing the layout for those sites".

The PCC ruling states:

The Commission has consistently stated that headlines can only be fully understood in the context of an article when read as a whole. On this occasion, the article made plain to readers the level of the complainant's involvement with pornographic websites: he had designed websites that hosted legal adult content. It was clear that the complainant's role was as a designer, rather than a producer, of web content.

Accordingly, "no breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) could be established on these points".

Regarding the escort girl sting, Smith complained that the Mail's investigation was "intrusive, and that the newspaper had used subterfuge, in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) and 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors' Code of Practice".

The PCC rejected this, ruling:

It was not in dispute that, as part of her enquiries, the reporter had created a bogus Facebook page and had misrepresented her identity to the complainant. The reporter had then revealed her true identity when she met the complainant in person.

While it was clear that the journalist had used subterfuge, the Commission had regard to the level of intrusion involved, which was not - in its view - of a particularly serious order. The actions of the journalist consisted of the use of a false name and social networking page, for the purpose of obtaining non-personal information about the complainant's business activities. There was no undercover filming or inappropriate access to private information about the complainant. The Commission was satisfied that the public interest argument advanced by the newspaper - to the effect that the ongoing design of websites connected to the sex industry was incompatible with the complainant's role in a prominent local community website - justified the employment of such mild subterfuge in this case. It considered that the newspaper could legitimately claim that this method was necessary to obtain the information, believing that the complainant may not have been forthcoming to a direct journalistic approach about his willingness to consider designing a website for an escort. There was no breach of Clause 10.

The inclusion of the complainant's partial address - which also served as his business premises - did not represent an intrusion into his private life. In addition, the brief reference to the complainant's partner, her role in Smiths Media Solutions and her employment did not reveal anything especially private about her. There was no breach of the Code.

HU17.net appears to be none the worse for the scandal, and is today in rude health. The Hull Daily Mail continues, as several readers have kindly pointed out, to accept classified ads for real escort girls. ®