Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00333-22 Bunting v Sunday Life
Summary
of Complaint
1. Peter
Bunting complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “’Give New IRA cash if they turn their backs on terror’…says
Ex union boss Bunting”, published on 7 November 2021.
2. The
article was an interview with the complainant – a former assistant general
secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions – about his views on
initiatives which aim to help paramilitaries move away from criminality. He was
quoted throughout the article discussing relevant mechanisms which would need
to be in place for those who wish to transition away from violence. The
complainant was quoted saying: “If they are serious about transitioning [away
from violence], there has to be a model to encourage that transitioning, but
there has to be a ceasefire first”; “If there are people who are genuinely
committed to transitioning from conflict to peaceful political activity, we
have to have the route for that to happen” and “There should be some degree of
a route map for those who may well be tempted at some stage in the future to
transition”. The front page was headlined “’Give New IRA cash if they turn
their backs on terror’…says Ex union boss Bunting” and the article continued on
page 7 under the headline “‘Give New IRA cash if they give up terror’”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format, headlined “‘Give
New IRA cash if they give up terror’”.
4. The
complainant said that the headline breached Clause 1 as he considered it to be
inaccurate, misleading and not supported by the text of the article. He said
the use of quotation marks gave the impression that he made the specific
statement in the interview with the journalist, whereas he claimed he had not.
He further said that at no stage did he explicitly refer to providing “cash” to
armed groups, including the New IRA, but rather referred to a transition/route
map for armed groups from violence and various related matters such as
reintegration of prisoners, ceasefire, and decommissioning.
5. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of the Code. The newspaper provided
a recording of the interview and said the journalist had relied on this when
writing the article and provided a transcript of selected excerpts.
6. The
publication said that the use of quotation marks in a headline was a
well-established convention which indicates either a direct quote or a concise
distillation of comments which are the subject of the story. It further stated
that it was well established that the headline and article must be read
together for their full meaning. The publication argued that the essence of the
complainant’s comments was that if – a key caveat that was included in the
headline – paramilitary groups who continue to operate in Northern Ireland, of
which the Real IRA is the most active and well known, were willing to
transition to a peace process then there needed to be a mechanism to
accommodate and encourage such a transition akin to money that had been availed
of by 'traditional' paramilitary groups through community funding projects.
7. The
publication added that the article and sub-headline contained further
explanations of the complainant’s comments, telling readers that he was
advocating a process that would encourage dissident groups to give up violence.
8. The
publication explained that at the beginning of the interview the journalist had
discussed the Peace IV programme. This programme had supported peace and
reconciliation through various charity organisations. The publication said that
various groups linked to paramilitary groups on ceasefire had benefited from
Peace IV funds via charity organisations and provided some links to these
charities.
9. The
publication quoted the journalist who asked the complainant in the recording
whether he would like to see “groups like ONH and the New IRA being involved in
those [Peace IV funded] projects? To which the complainant replied: "It's
conditional, of course, on the fact that they have given up attacking the
security forces and members of their own community. That would have to happen
first. If they are serious about transitioning, there has to be a model to
encourage that transitioning. Again it is conditional on that there has to be a
ceasefire first."
10. The
publication supplied a transcript of the interview which it believed provided
the basis for the headline, including the following exchange:
The
journalist asked: "A more positive approach you would say, using the New
IRA as example, would be declare a ceasefire, show you are sincere about it and
here are the benefits you can potentially reap from that, funding for positive
projects post-violence."
The
complainant replied: "Yeah, as happened to the UVF, UDA, elements of the
UDA, elements of the UVF, INLA and republicans. They are availing of assistance
in their transition and so in NI, in working class communities, if we are
moving to transition we need to have a route map".
11. The
publication said that during the interview, the journalist referred to the New
IRA on a number of occasions as one of the groups that the complainant’s views
would apply to and that he did not say any particular group was to be excluded.
12. The
newspaper also highlighted the additional article on page 7 of the print
version which was by the same journalist which detailed how such community
funding projects have worked to date.
13. While the publication did not accept a breach
of Clause 1, in an attempt to resolve the matter, it offered the complainant a
right of reply by way of a letter to the editor.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
14. The
Committee acknowledged that the complainant had not said the exact words
contained within the quotation marks in the headline. However, it noted that
quotation marks can serve different purposes: while they can denote a verbatim
quotation, they can also be used to indicate that the enclosed statement
represents a summary. In this instance, the Committee was satisfied that the
quotation marks were being used for the latter purpose.
15. The
question for the Committee to consider was whether the headline was an accurate
summary of the complainant’s position and whether it was supported by the
article. In this instance, the Committee considered that there was sufficient
basis for the summary in the headline, where in the transcript the journalist
referenced funding post-violence projects and the IRA as an example: “A more
positive approach you would say, using the New IRA as example, would be declare
a ceasefire, show you are sincere about it and here are the benefits you can
potentially reap from that, funding for positive projects post-violence."
To which the complainant responded: "Yeah, as happened to the UVF, UDA,
elements of the UDA, elements of the UVF, INLA and republicans. They are
availing of assistance in their transition and so in NI, in working class
communities, if we are moving to transition, we need to have a route map”. The
article further supported the headline where it quoted the complainant
extensively on his position on the mechanisms that would need to be in place
for such incentives and made clear that it was “conditional” that these groups
give up violence first, a caveat which was distinguished in the headline. The
Committee decided that the headline summary of the complainant’s position was
supported by the complainant’s comments and that the publication had taken care
not to publish inaccurate information. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point. Nevertheless, the Committee acknowledged the publication’s offer to
publish a letter from the complainant in which he would have an opportunity to
clarify his position.
Conclusion(s)
14. The
complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.
Date complaint
received: 10/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2022
Back to ruling listing