There were 26,436 complaints and queries submitted to the readers' editor's office in the 12-month period between April 2013 and March 2014, a similar number to last year, despite a growth in the Guardian's online audience to more than 100 million monthly browsers.
We published 2,400 online amendments in comparison with 1,900 in the previous year while the number of printed corrections and clarifications remained stable at just over 1,000. The rise in amendments partly reflects the growth in the amount of material published – 500 articles a day in print and online – but it also reflects the efforts to address more readers' complaints and queries.
Surprises
Within those figures there are, I think, a few surprises. There were 65 complaints about the decision of the Guardian to give a freelance contract to former minister Chris Huhne, following his release from a prison sentence for perverting the course of justice; that was more than three times the number of complaints about the Guardian's coverage of Edward Snowden and the NSA.
The number of complaints was even higher when he wrote a column, The crooked judge and I, published on 5 May 2014. This single column generated the most complaints so far for any piece he had written. In it he gave his view of the role of Constance Briscoe in his own arrest and conviction, after she was jailed for 16 months for perverting the course of justice – 65 letters critical of the column were submitted for publication; also critical were the overwhelming majority of the nearly 1,500 comments below his article. The readers' editor's office also received 20 complaints.
Press Complaints Commission
Nine of the 23 complaints against the Guardian taken up by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) during the year were first made to the readers' editor. Of these, five rejected by the readers' editor were also not upheld by the PCC. However, one of those decisions recognised that we had run a correction but supported the view of the complainant that the corrections and clarifications column was insufficiently prominent. The PCC said: "The complainant considered that in a prominent page-six article, the newspaper had inaccurately reported that 91.9% of patients waited more than four hours to be seen at London's A&E departments; the actual figure was 8.1%. The complainant had notified the newspaper of the inaccuracy on the day of publication and it had published a correction in its "Corrections and Clarifications" column on page 39 of the next day's edition. The complainant considered that the newspaper had failed to give the correction "due prominence" and expressed concern that many readers had been left with a significantly misleading impression of standards of NHS care."
The PCC, while supporting the idea of a regular slot for a "Corrections and Clarifications" column, emphasised that it had some concern, in this context, about the placement of a correction on page 39 of the newspaper, in light of the fact that the original story had appeared on page six. One other complaint was dropped, as a correction had already been printed and one partially upheld.
The most significant complaint that was passed to the readers' editor but then submitted to the PCC was that of Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen's private secretary. Sir Christopher, and his role in connection with the press Royal Charter, was the subject of three articles on 8 May 2013. On the day of publication, the Palace wrote to the editor-in-chief alleging "many factual inaccuracies" in the three pieces concerning not only aspects of the profile of Sir Christopher but also stating that all the articles "egregiously misrepresent the Private Secretary's role with respect to the proposed Royal Charter on press regulation." This complaint was upheld, the first against the Guardian in more than a decade.
Unusually, the Commission accepted that the Guardian had offered a sufficient remedy under the code but upheld the complaint, ruling that the Guardian's articles had contained "serious overstatements, presented as fact." On 19 November, the Guardian ran the PCC adjudication on page 10. As I write this report, it is still undecided whether the Guardian will join the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which is to take over from the PCC in September.
Deletions
Deletion requests continue to grow and continue to present some of the most difficult judgements we have to make. We decided to add some further tests to the circumstances in which the Guardian will consider a deletion of an article or articles. The default position remains that nothing should come down other than in wholly exceptional circumstances.
There are other actions that can be taken, such as anonymising an article. It is also appropriate in some circumstances to advise the complainant on steps that can be taken to push an article down in the Google rankings. We have a stock letter with that kind of information, while the current guidelines on deletion remain. They include:
• Alterations or deletions will be made where a legal challenge to content is supported by the Guardian's legal department
• Where it can be shown that someone's life or health – be it mental or physical – could be at risk, due consideration will be given to the alteration or removal of content, for instance the substitution of a real name with a pseudonym. This can involve those who have been the subject of domestic violence
• Matters involving children will be given special consideration where it can be shown that they may be identified or were unable to give informed consent at the time their parents or guardians took part in a story or feature
• Where fresh verifiable information is submitted that discredits a story, deletion will be considered.
We will also apply these further tests:
1. Is this from the individual themselves or a third party such as an agent or pressure group?
2. Has the takedown been discussed with the author and a senior editor?
3. What would be the damage to an individual if the article remains?
4. In circumstances where the issue turns on distress is it reasonable to ask to what extent has he or she made themselves a public figure?
