Why staying within the law is not censorship

Since the story of the collapse of Derby Hippodrome broke on Friday, we have had more than 500 comments by users of our website.
Of course, we are delighted by this. It is great that our stories provoke such a reaction.
But with comment boxes come dangers. The words within them must adhere to the libel and contempt laws. If they don't, it won't be anonymous posters who are chased by lawyers - it will be the Evening Telegraph.
They must also keep within the boundaries of taste which are adopted by the newspaper.
Thus, this weekend, many posts on the subject of Derby Hippodrome have been removed.
That means these posts were considered potentially libellous, insulting or abusive.
In return for their removal, we have been accused of censorship by some users, while others have DEMANDED their right to free speech.
It is an interesting demand. One, which apparently comes with the right to anonymity and the right to commit libel in the name of the Derby Evening Telegraph.
We provide the comment boxes as a free service. They are a way of stimulating debate or paying tribute. They are not a vehicle to break the law or to insult people.
And we make no apology for removing some comments nor do we apologise for blocking persistent offenders.

Telegraph shortlisted for national awards

While the respect of our readers is of paramount importance to us it is always pleasing to be given the plaudits of our peers.

Thus, we are delighted that the Newspaper Society has announced that we have been shortlisted in eight categories at its awards ceremony in April.

Five individuals have been recognised for their work in 2007.

They are health reporter Jade Beecroft (journalist of the year category), Chris Mallett (young reporter), Adam Gerrard (photographer of the year), Kate Burnett (sports photographer), and Derby County reporter Steve Nicholson (sports journalist).

We are delighted that our coverage of local soldiers in Afghanistan has also been praised. It had been a hard decision to send journalists to the frontline last year. The fact that we sent a reporter and a photographer was well-received by the Mercian Regiment, as was the website we dedicated to servicemen to help them keep in touch with their loved ones.

Our work on this subject, particularly the website element, has been shortlisted in the category for innovative newspaper of the year.

The Afghanistan coverage was a central plank in our entry in the prestigious newspaper of the year category and earned us another place on a shortlist.

Happily, it is not just our journalists who have excelled in the eyes of the Newspaper Society. We have also been shortlisted for value-added product of the year for the promotion of our rented property section.

This recognition is much-appreciated but we emphasise to our staff that it cannot make us complacent.

We will strive to improve your paper and website every day. And we are keen to receive your comments on how to make them even better.

Interpreters figure was wrong

At the Derby Evening Telegraph we have an ethos of admitting when we are wrong, no matter how difficult or embarrassing, it may be. We believe that our readers and users of our websites will trust us more if we are as open as possible.

Thus, I can tell you that yesterday’s first edition front page lead, was incorrect.

Our reporter believed she had heard Chief Constable Mick Creedon say, at a police authority meeting, that the force had spent half a million pounds in the last year on interpreters. The police contacted us at 11.30am today (Thursday) to tell us that he had said a quarter of a million pounds.

Immediately, we withdrew the story from the web with the intention of resubmitting the updated story. The story was relegated from the newspaper’s front page lead to page two and the editorial comment changed to another subject.

A full inquest was held into how the mistake was made. The reality is it was simple human error.

There was certainly no conspiracy or any attempt to over-hype a story.

I tell you this because some people had already posted comments which suggested that the story was the result of us following a political agenda, set by our sister paper, the Daily Mail.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have never had any instruction from the Daily Mail on how to compose stories.

We did, however, believe that the public ought to know about the latest pressure on the police, both in financial terms. In our opinion column we did not comment on the merits of the Government immigration policy but on the need for those who reside in the country to learn English to take pressures off services like the police and schools.

That this pressure has not been recognised by Government makes this story of significant public interest, we still believe, despite the figure being considerably lower than we first reported.

Banned for insensitivity

Yesterday staff in our newsroom were genuinely saddened to hear of the death of young Joshua Ginns.

The Telegraph has documented Joshua’s fight for life since we first heard he had cancer in 2003 and we had reported, in December, on the decision of his parents to stop his treatment so he could have a better quality of life.

At that time we were so keen to make it clear to the family that we did not want to sensationalise their decision that we took the extremely unusual step of discussing with them how the article would be presented in the paper.

Thus, when we heard that he had died such a short time later, we were genuinely upset.

It took some time, in fact, to come up with what we considered a suitable headline: “Goodbye to our little inspiration’’

Today it was gratifying that so many of our readers were moved enough to comment on our website and give their own tributes to Joshua.

Unfortunately, however, one website user (who has regularly sought to create controversy) claimed: “The sentimental outgushings of some of the previous posts make me want to throw up!’’

The encouragement of opinion on the internet brings with it a dilemma. Do we allow people to have their say as long as it is legal or do we still apply the high moral stance which has helped make the Derby Evening Telegraph a trusted brand for more than 120 years?

The idea of censorship is an anathema to journalists but the 99.9 per cent of right-minded people out there might like to know this person’s comments were removed and he has been banned from adding further insults.

We'd like your views on the Evening Telegraph and its coverage of stories. How do you think we're doing? How could we do better? Please add your comments below.

How the DET tackled the Gilbert case

Thanks to the advent of immediate response boxes on our internet site, there are more and more comments on the way the Evening Telegraph tackles stories.

We have decided, therefore, to produce a blog which specifically explains how we go about what we do and why we do it.

We shall also strive to answer criticism and queries from our readers.

With this in mind I shall open by addressing the subject of today’s analysis of the Bernard Gilbert manslaughter case.

The brick attack on Mr Gilbert’s house was partly brought about by the passing on of his address to a known criminal by a police officer, Stephen Smith.

When his part was discovered, Smith was arrested and resigned from his job. He was later fined £1,200 for passing on confidential information.

The newspaper was well aware that Derbyshire Police officers were horrified by what Smith had done and that he was working alone.

That thought dictated our thinking to how we approached our coverage following the verdict.

We reprised Smith’s case on our internet site yesterday to demonstrate, for those who missed it, that he had already appeared in court and that the police had acted quickly in dealing with him.

Our coverage in the newspaper was centred around an interview with Detective Superintendent Andy Hough. It gave him very significant space to emphasise that the police have extensive measures to try to prevent an abuse of the system like Stephen Smith’s.

Finally our editorial comment made clear that Smith’s activities should not affect the reputation of Derbyshire Police.

Within it, we wrote: “It is important to recognise that Smith operated alone in his folly, very quickly left the force and it would be unfair to tar all his colleagues with the same brush of shame.’’

Throughout yesterday afternoon we were in close liaison with the police, who understood that it was in the public interest that we demonstrated the link between Smith and Mr Gilbert’s death. We also made sure they had the opportunity to comment extensively on the methods use to catch Smith and, therefore, allow the force to emerge with the credit it deserved for its detection work.

We'd like your views on the Evening Telegraph and its coverage of stories. How do you think we're doing? How could we do better? Please add your comments below.