Last month the Press Complaints Commission made a judgement in a case involving discriminatory comments on a newspaper article. The case highlighted the issue of journalism on mental health and how it is treated by publishers alongside similar considerations such as sexuality, gender, religion and ethnicity. The complaint also led to a change in The Guardian’s moderation rules.

In a guest post for the Online Journalism Blog the person who brought that case, Beatrice Bray, writes about her experiences of comment abuse, and the role she feels publishers should take in dealing both with comments relating to mental health, as well as writers with mental health issues.

Last April I wrote a rallying cry for the Guardian for all who have endured taunts about mental ill health. In my reply article Cartoonists should be careful how they portray mental health (23/4/10) I reclaimed the word “psychotic”. Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson had used the word to abuse Mrs Thatcher. I put him right.

I am a long-standing reader of the Guardian newspaper but I did not know the website audience. Being a proud campaigner I told Guardian readers that I had bipolar disorder and had experienced psychosis.

I expected a civil hearing. Newspaper readers did oblige but many online readers were foul.

The Guardian’s managing editor Chris Elliott did not warn me about the impending abuse. That was a mistake. I think Mr Elliott knew I would face hostility but I do not think he realised how badly I would be hurt.

Those insults made me physically sick. My head was sore for many weeks. This was all so pointless. If Mr Elliott had given me a chance to discuss the risks involved we both could have taken precautions. Instead there was a row.

Guardian staff gave me an apology but told me to grow a “thick skin”. That jibe spurned me into going to the Press Complaints Commission. It is free. It is also less adversarial and less costly than a disability tribunal.

I was not asking for anything unprecedented. The BBC has guidelines on working with vulnerable people. We need to extend this to new media.

Working with vulnerable people

For example when dealing with discussion sites moderators need to deal swiftly with abuse. They also must facilitate discussions so that they do not turn nasty.

Staff should appreciate the reasons for this action. This is not prima donna treatment. This action is necessary because the writer and many of the readers share a common disability. They all have mental health problems.

Section 2 of the PCC Editors’ code promised fairness to complainants. I thought it only fair to ask for warning of abuse but in my PCC ruling the Guardian and the PCC disagreed with me. The PCC did not say why.

However, I did score other points.

Before the PCC ruling the Guardian at my request did add the word “disability” to its moderation rules.

The PCC and the Guardian and did apologise with regard to the abuse.

Guardian online readers called me, amongst other things, a “nutter” and a “retard”. Unfortunately both the Guardian and PCC refused to accept that this was discrimination as defined by the terms of section 12 of the Editor’s code of the PCC.

This is not just semantics. To me the word “discrimination” is a word with power. It holds the abuser responsible but the PCC fights shy of doing that online.

I now know that you can only complain to the PCC if a staff member makes a discriminatory remark about you. Comments made by non-staff members do not fall within the PCC’s remit. My abusers were not Guardian staff.

It is a shame. By being discrimination deniers both the Guardian and the PCC cut themselves off from a store of knowledge on handling disability and mental health in particular.

PHP Freelancer

In a guest post for the OJB, The Professional Cartoonists’ Organisation give an overview of how news organisations are treating cartoons online.

Cartoons have long been an essential part of British newspapers, so why do so many of those publications fail to do justice to drawn content on their websites?

The digital display of the web is a visual medium and cartoons and illustrations thrive on it. Yet many newsprint employers have not been quick to develop the advantages that drawn imagery offers as a digital communication tool and as existing sticky content for their sites and products.

Too many publications hide, or don’t publish, drawn work on the web, sometimes through lethargy and often through an unwillingness to discuss reprint fees with the creators of the work. (Almost all of the people working in this branch of visual journalism are self-employed.)

This is not to say that cartoonists aren’t without fault, sometimes we aren’t the quickest to embrace change either, although we have now set up the UK’s first digital sites for the working professional cartoonist: The Professional Cartoonists’ Organisation and its online diary, the Bloghorn.

At a recent London event, the BBC’s Andrew Marr wondered whether we were a trade union. We are not, and it was a costly question for him: he was kidnapped and is now one of our patrons, along with the Times columnist Libby Purves.

To be fair, some publications are beginning to buck the trend, and decent examples of the display and promotion of drawing can now be found at the websites of most of the major newsprint titles and some broadcasters.

The Guardian stands out, not least for its roster of cartoonists, running from Steve Bell, through to Kipper Williams, Martin Rowson, Nicola Jennings and Harry Venning. (Why no online place for Ros Asquith or Kate Taylor?)

The Telegraph does well too, particularly for its high-up, front-page promotion of Matt Pritchett and of Peattie and Taylor’s cartoon strip Alex as key pieces of quality editorial content.

The Independent’s much improved web showcase also does well for Dave Brown, Peter Schrank and Tim Sanders. This is in contrast to The Times site which lacks a web archive and a sensible display solution for the drawings. This does no favours to the work of either Morten Morland or Peter Brookes.

Mac at The Daily Mail doesn’t fare so well either, as he finds himself relegated to the Coffee Break pages, a distance from his original front page link. The signed-print offer is enterprising though. The Mail also buy-in a US animated cartoon from Joe Martin.

On the homegrown animated front, Matt Buck’s clickable Hack cartoons appear at Channel 4, and the Telegraph scores again for this innovation with Pat Blower’s Livedraw, which also shows weekly as video.

The Spectator magazine now offers a simple click-through slideshow of some of its weekly gag cartoons and Private Eye continues to publish a selection of work from talent such as Pete Dredge, Martin Honeysett, Ken Pyne and Royston Robertson.

The Mirror’s promising cartoon home page (wide selection) is spoiled by appalling sizing of the cartoon strips which are close to illegible in display.

The Sun does better on this front but the home page is so advertising graphic heavy, its a wonder anyone can open it at all. The Sun’s editorial artist, Bill Caldwell, is hard to find too.

Of course, cartoonists are lateral thinkers and resourceful, and many have followed the self-publishing road. Below we list below a few notable cartooning blogs.

One of our older magazines, Tribune, has run a political cartoon blog for more than two years. You can find Alex Hughes, Martin Rowson, Matt Buck and the great cartoonist John Jensen there regularly.

On the creative front, we were pleased to see Steve Bell of The Guardian doing something called a Visi-blog from the Democratic Party National Convention in Denver, USA. That’s visual progress isn’t it?

The Professional Cartoonists’ Organisation

Cartoon blogging:

• PCO’s Bloghorn http://www.procartoonists.blogspot.com
• Pat Blower and Christian Adams of the Telegraph
• Matt Buck (Hack) of Channel 4 News
• Wilbur Dawbarn (wiLbur)
• Alex Hughes of Tribune
• Alexander Matthews
• Morten Morland of The Times
• Royston Robertson
• Bill Stott

PHP Freelancer