This reminded me of this story in the Daily Mail:
Which as you can see is in the 'News' section, and was written by no fewer than five reporters. It went on to claim that:
Worse was this article, again filed under 'News':
Apart from the drooling neo-paedophilia of which the Mail is frequently guilty, I complained to the PCC that there was no evidence that these women were there because they 'just wanted a photo for Facebook', breaching the article on accuracy.
No joy. Apparently even though it's under 'news', the reporter's unfounded claims and emotive language mean that
the Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the article was an account of this particular journalist’s experience of the protest and the views he had formed on it, rather than necessarily statements of fact. As such, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.So accuracy no longer matters at all under PCC rules. I'm eager to see how Leveson deals with this.