UK: PCC doesn't denounce The Guardian for Israel/South Africa comparison

The Guardian in this case seems to be a target because Camera is looking for a more sympathetic point of view. However the PCC stated in their adjudication that the articles took steps to state that not everyone, specifically Israelis would agree with the comparison.

This challenge by Camera brings up questions regarding freedom of the press and what can exactly be regulated. The PCC went on to say, "However, inherent in freedom of expression is the right for newspapers to publish challenging and partisan material, which inevitably includes political judgments with which many will disagree. The newspaper was entitled... to select material, in the form of quotations (which had not been disputed by the people quoted) or statistics, that supported the clearly stated premise of the article."

Regarding the actually accuracy of the articles the PCC ruled, "The particular points of alleged inaccuracy specified within the complaint were all widely disputed in different accounts."

It was not the PCC's job to state whether the Guardian articles were correct but to rule on the ability for them to be printed. "It was apparent to the Commission that much of this complaint was founded on the complainant’s fundamental disagreement with the hypothesis at the centre of the articles." Because there was evidence and explanations to support claims made in the article, there were no ethical guidelines broken.

Source: Guardian, The Public Complaints Comission