No apology for major error
I have long relied on the honesty of my favourite newspaper. A recent event shakes that trust. A major article in Guardian ‘Money’ on the 5th January was an alarming tale of injustice.
The claim was that one Welsh woman gets 11 times the state pension of a neighbour - in spite of paying a lower contribution. One is alleged to receive £83 a week the other only £7. MP Lynne Jones was so aghast that she raised the issue in an oral parliamentary question.
An eagle eyed friend raised the issue with the Readers' Editor of the Guardian and the writer of the article Tony Levene, the editor of ‘Money’ supplement?" The minimum basic pension payable is 25 per cent of the full rate - about £21.80 so the lady in the story can’t be getting a basic pension of about £7.
One of the ladies, Veronica is described in the Guardian's headline (not in quotes) as "a woman who didn't work" and Ruby is quoted as saying "I've paid income tax and national insurance for most of my life and she hasn't paid a penny." Ruby also says that Veronica will get a pension of £83 a week” helped by 19 years on HRP".
Levene was told that, to get a basic pension of £83, Veronica would need a record of 24 years' contributions paid or credited, in addition to the 19 years of HRP. "To achieve this she must presumably have worked and paid full contributions from age 16 until her first child was born, and again from 1997 until now." And this is a woman who "didn't work" and "hasn't paid a penny"!!
Levene wrote: "I accept there are a number of points in Veronica's figures which give some rise for doubt. In particular, it now seems that at least part of her state pension may be because her husband is some years older than she is and she may be counting her pension (acquired from his contributions)."
My friend replied "Veronica's basic pension on her husband's insurance would be at most £52.30. If she is getting £83 a week, it must be on her own insurance - which ... appears to mean that she paid or was credited with full contributions for 24 years, in addition to the HRP years. If that is the case, it seems most unlikely that Ruby paid more into the state system than Veronica."
The Guardian would not publish a detailed correction. Levene wrote: "I do not believe we can publish a correction because we were relying on what we were told. ... However, we would consider publishing a letter from you that was couched in non-technical terms ...” My friend replied: "I don't see why I should be put to the trouble of writing a letter about the errors in your article, without even an undertaking from you to publish my letter. You wrote the article and you should write the correction. My friend said he would be willing to read and comment on a draft of Levene’s correction." That offer has not been taken up and no correction has been published.
This is a profoundly disappointing reaction to a major error by the editor of the ‘Money’ section. It was a headline error and deserves a headline apology.
Future brilliant
The brightest hour today was a chat-in with the alarmingly intelligent embryo journalists from the London College of Communication.
They are likely future radio journalists and I have the inspiring task of being interrogated by then once a year. It’s great for me to ventilate to journalists in a private session. Journalists and politicians have so much in common. We strut as the world greatest experts on a dozen subjects today and a dozen more tomorrow.
One student asked me for ‘advice’ on his career. Am I that old? The profession has a fascinating mix of heroes and villains. If they are likely be become tabloid journalists spewing out the foul propaganda their editors demand, they could have a more honourable, self –respecting career by selling their bodies on the street. If they develop into writers like Matthew Parris, Robert Fisk, Polly Toynbee or Andrew Marr they will have a creative satisfying lives and may shape history.
Thanks very much, students, for a stimulating session. See you next when you are introducing Panorama or Newsnight.
MPs to be fleeced
Select Committees have some strange requests.
A letter received from Tory MP Bernard Jenkins asked for us to ape an odd American practise. Bernard was impressed in the USA when he accompanied a Congressman at public events.
The Congressman wore the official Congress fleece which has the Congress Symbol of a bald eagle emblazoned on its back. Bernard would like our committee to commend an MP’s outfit that would have a portcullis on it. People could then, presumably, treat us with the deference we deserve. Or not.
Most MPs think that with our present status in public opinion, the portcullis might be treated as a target.
Cripple abuse
With regard to the Parliamentary fleece.
I'd simply like to add this piece.
A logo emblazoned on their backs.
Should reflect the glaring and massive cracks,
In expenses paid for by my dosh,
The nepotism just won't wash.
It seems that they shun the light for the murkies.
If that be the case they should all wear turkeys.
Present co. excepted, natch.
As cover-ups begin to hatch.
There are a number of your species,
Who treat the punters as if they were faeces.
Posted by: Jolly Roger | January 30, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Two points here are linked. I have had reason to contact the Guardian in the past over inaccuracy or unbalanced.
There attitude was their journalists are experts and no additional material is required.
If you are a MP or within a small media etc set you my not notice.
Outside they can be very arrogant and dismissive. The journalist is more important than accuracy of the story.
Eg the Dome. I have letters and emails from Government consultants that show the proposal for an environment centre at the Dome was shortlisted.
The Guardian ran numerous articles on the Dome listed some of the proposals, not mine.
The Guardian would not add even a small amount, compared to what others were getting, piece that an environment centre as one proposal. Completely unbalanced.
Their attitude was their journalists were experts and knew everything about it. No they didn't, they weren't in the bid so didn't know everything.
The Guardian and media miss out so much important information. It is deliberate omission rather mistakes etc that is a problem with the British media.
That's my experience. Which will be different than that of an MP.
Posted by: Roger Jardine Thomas | January 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM