Resolution
Statement – 00223-22 Moore v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Richard
Moore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Outrage at claim Scots
councillor called woman's assault by ex-partner 'just another domestic'”,
published on 17 December 2021.
2. The
article, which appeared online only, reported on claims that the complainant –
a local councillor – had “sparked outrage after allegedly referring to an
attack on a woman by her partner as "just another domestic"”. It went
on to state that the complainant had “allegedly made the remarks at a
behind-closed-doors licensing meeting on Monday, to which the public had no
access”, and that another councillor had released a public statement which said
that "I am utterly appalled that an elected member in a council meeting
today referred to a very serious assault on a female by her male ex-partner as
' just another domestic'”.
3. The
article also included a comment from the complainant, in which he said "I
did not use the word 'just'. I acknowledged that it was a domestic and that it
was no less serious for that. Any sort of violence against any person is
unacceptable. Violence against women is more prevalent than violence against
men but it counts both ways. Whichever way it goes it should be dealt with
robustly."
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, and
that he had not made the comments which the article alleged he had made. He
said that this had been confirmed after the matter had been referred to the
Monitoring Officer, who found that the complainant had not made this alleged comment.
He said that the publication would have been aware of this fact had they
contacted the council for comment and properly fact-checked the article prior
to publication. To support his position on this point, the complainant provided
a statement from the council which had
been given to another media organisation, which stated the council could
confirm that he had not made the comment during the meeting.
5. The
complainant also said that Clause 3 had been breached, as the journalist who
wrote the article under complaint had written numerous articles about him.
6. The
publication said that the information included in the article regarding the
comment had been provided by an anonymous source, and that this information had
been supported and confirmed by several other sources. It also noted that the
disputed comment was presented throughout the article as an allegation – and
therefore distinguished from established fact – and that the article also
included the complainant’s denial.
7. Nevertheless,
taking into account the information the complainant had provided to IPSO –
namely, the statement from the council – the publication removed the online
article in its entirety, to resolve the complaint.
8. The
complainant said that the removal of the article was not sufficient to resolve
his complaint, and that he wished for the publication to publish some form of
clarification or correction on its website.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 3
(Harassment)
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to publish the following
standalone online correction and apology, which would appear on its homepage
for 24 hours and then be archived for the lifetime of the website:
An
article published by dailyrecord.co.uk on 17 December was headlined 'Outrage at
claim Scots councillor called woman's assault by ex-partner 'just another
domestic'', and originally reported that Councillor Richard Moore referred to
the attack as 'just another domestic'. This allegation was provided by a source
and published in good faith, however, we have since been advised that this is
not true. Angus Council has confirmed that Cllr Moore did not make that
comment, nor was domestic abuse trivialised by any councillors at the meeting.
We would like to clarify this and apologise for the error.
11. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 05/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/03/2022
Back to ruling listing