Tony’s Carp
Player Valuation: £40m
Presented without comment:
Josimar fell in the PFU
Here you can read the entire statement to the Press' Professional Committee.
THE PRESS'S PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE SAYS:
The complaint concerns an article in the football magazine Josimar about a footballer who was accused of rape, violence and threats. Josimar wrote that the man, who had previously been acquitted of sleep rape, was reported to the police by a new woman.
The complainant is the footballer, who complains via a lawyer. The complainant states that Josimar did not contact the man or the lawyer before publication and therefore believes that point 4.14 of the Vær Varsom poster (VVP) on simultaneous countermeasures has been breached. This means that the journal lacked sufficient breadth of sources and information control, according to complaints. Furthermore, the complainant writes that Josimar has breached VVP 4.5, on pre-judgment, because the journal did not mention that the woman's report was dismissed. The complainant also believes that the journal did not give the man sufficient answers afterwards, because his version of the case was only linked to, and in a text which the complainant believes had a polemical tail. According to complaints, the man has also been identified because the magazine stated which football club he played for.
Josimar admits that the complainant should have been dealt with at the same time, and states that this was apologized for at the bottom of the article when the complainant contacted the editors. The source base is otherwise good, according to Josimar. As Josimar sees it, they have not breached VVP's right of reply, as the complainant refused to give a reply when the lawyer spoke to the editors on the phone after publication. Josimar further believes that the footballer has not been identified even though the football club has been stated. If the club had been left out, it would cast suspicion on a large group of people, the journal argues. As regards the closure that Josimar did not mention, it is stated that the editorial office is small and that there were no people in the office.
The Press' Professional Committee (PFU) notes that Josimar has not named the footballer, but stated which club he played for. The PFU understands that the case has been a burden for the player, but as the committee sees it, he has been sufficiently anonymised, cf. VVP 4.7.
When the media have discussed ongoing criminal cases, it is important that they follow up when the final conclusion is reached. This also applies in cases where the person referred to is anonymised. VVP 4.5 states that it is "good press practice to refer to a legally binding decision in cases that have been discussed previously". Josimar did not mention that the police dismissed the rape report which was the basis for the contested article. The PFU emphasizes that small newsrooms are not exempt from the press ethics obligations in the VVP.
A central point in the complaint is Josimar's lack of contact with the footballer before the article was published. The Vær Varsom poster states that those who are exposed to strong accusations must be allowed to counter factual information before publication, cf. VVP 4.14. Josimar admits to having failed on this point. The footballer was accused of rape, violence and threats, and the PFU believes that he should obviously have to answer for this. Josimar put in an apology in the article, but that doesn't make up for the overstepping.
The requirement for simultaneous countermeasures must often be seen in the context of VVP 3.2, which asks the media to ensure a sufficient breadth of sources and check that information is correct. When the press is to publish strong accusations against an individual, strict requirements are made on this point. As PFU sees it, Josimar's information control and breadth of sources were insufficient, as the editors did not check the accusations with other sources.
PFU believes it is positive that Josimar apologized, but the committee is critical of how it was done. The magazine linked to a press release from the footballer's lawyer, in which the player's view came out. Finally, in the apology, Josimar wrote that the editors have documentation that refutes the footballer's version. PFU refers to VVP 4.15, which states that replies must not be equipped with editorial, polemical retorts.
Josimar has breached good press practice in points 3.2, 4.5, 4.14 and 4.15 of the Vær Varsom poster.
Josimar fell in the PFU
Here you can read the entire statement to the Press' Professional Committee.
THE PRESS'S PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE SAYS:
The complaint concerns an article in the football magazine Josimar about a footballer who was accused of rape, violence and threats. Josimar wrote that the man, who had previously been acquitted of sleep rape, was reported to the police by a new woman.
The complainant is the footballer, who complains via a lawyer. The complainant states that Josimar did not contact the man or the lawyer before publication and therefore believes that point 4.14 of the Vær Varsom poster (VVP) on simultaneous countermeasures has been breached. This means that the journal lacked sufficient breadth of sources and information control, according to complaints. Furthermore, the complainant writes that Josimar has breached VVP 4.5, on pre-judgment, because the journal did not mention that the woman's report was dismissed. The complainant also believes that the journal did not give the man sufficient answers afterwards, because his version of the case was only linked to, and in a text which the complainant believes had a polemical tail. According to complaints, the man has also been identified because the magazine stated which football club he played for.
Josimar admits that the complainant should have been dealt with at the same time, and states that this was apologized for at the bottom of the article when the complainant contacted the editors. The source base is otherwise good, according to Josimar. As Josimar sees it, they have not breached VVP's right of reply, as the complainant refused to give a reply when the lawyer spoke to the editors on the phone after publication. Josimar further believes that the footballer has not been identified even though the football club has been stated. If the club had been left out, it would cast suspicion on a large group of people, the journal argues. As regards the closure that Josimar did not mention, it is stated that the editorial office is small and that there were no people in the office.
The Press' Professional Committee (PFU) notes that Josimar has not named the footballer, but stated which club he played for. The PFU understands that the case has been a burden for the player, but as the committee sees it, he has been sufficiently anonymised, cf. VVP 4.7.
When the media have discussed ongoing criminal cases, it is important that they follow up when the final conclusion is reached. This also applies in cases where the person referred to is anonymised. VVP 4.5 states that it is "good press practice to refer to a legally binding decision in cases that have been discussed previously". Josimar did not mention that the police dismissed the rape report which was the basis for the contested article. The PFU emphasizes that small newsrooms are not exempt from the press ethics obligations in the VVP.
A central point in the complaint is Josimar's lack of contact with the footballer before the article was published. The Vær Varsom poster states that those who are exposed to strong accusations must be allowed to counter factual information before publication, cf. VVP 4.14. Josimar admits to having failed on this point. The footballer was accused of rape, violence and threats, and the PFU believes that he should obviously have to answer for this. Josimar put in an apology in the article, but that doesn't make up for the overstepping.
The requirement for simultaneous countermeasures must often be seen in the context of VVP 3.2, which asks the media to ensure a sufficient breadth of sources and check that information is correct. When the press is to publish strong accusations against an individual, strict requirements are made on this point. As PFU sees it, Josimar's information control and breadth of sources were insufficient, as the editors did not check the accusations with other sources.
PFU believes it is positive that Josimar apologized, but the committee is critical of how it was done. The magazine linked to a press release from the footballer's lawyer, in which the player's view came out. Finally, in the apology, Josimar wrote that the editors have documentation that refutes the footballer's version. PFU refers to VVP 4.15, which states that replies must not be equipped with editorial, polemical retorts.
Josimar has breached good press practice in points 3.2, 4.5, 4.14 and 4.15 of the Vær Varsom poster.
'tetchy' indeed.
