ASA Rules On Daily Mail
The ASA has adjudicated complaints made about the Daily Mail after the Daily Express claimed that the rival paper’s advertising tactics were “denigratory”. The Express lodged three complaints with the ASA after the Mail sent mailings, leaflets and free newspapers to Express readers.
The mailings stated: “I wondered if you are aware that the Daily Express is running down its North-West operation and sacking almost all its staff in the region.” Complimentary editions of the Daily Mail, which featured mock front covers, read: “The Daily and Sunday Express have recently been acquired by an individual whose routes in publishing are firmly linked to soft pornography…. There have also been large scale redundancies with the whole Express Digital Media department losing their jobs…We must ask ourselves if this man firmly based in pornography, truly understands what makes an honest, clean paper suitable for your family.”
In its first complaint the Express challenged the statement that it was sacking almost all its staff.. The second complaint was with regard to the claim that it was responsible for redundancies at Express Digital Media. Northern & Shell pointed out that the group had been sold before any job cuts were made. The third objection was that “the claims of sleaze and sackings were denigratory.”
The Daily Mail defended itself by producing press articles which it believed proved that the Express, under the new owner Richard Desmond, had undergone radical cutbacks. They said that Richard Desmond had been responsible for the redundancies at Express Digital Media because he had links with the company that had bought it, and argued that it was the paper’s responsibility to inform people that Richard Desmond “profited from the sale of pornography” because it was the role of a newspaper to “inform the public opinion.”
The ASA agreed that the staff cutbacks made by the Express in the North-West had been considerable and that the group was “not necessarily free from [the] responsibility” of redundancies at Express Digital Media. They concluded that these claims were acceptable and refused to uphold the complaints relating to this.
However, the Authority considered that while: “Links between the Express’ proprietor and soft pornography might be truthful, those links did not justify the implication that the content of the Daily Express was sleazy.” They concluded that the “comparison was unacceptable” and advised the Mail to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice before using a similar approach in the future.
ASA: 020 7580 5555 www.asa.org.uk
Subscribers can access ten years of media news and analysis in the Archive