Decision of the Complaints Committee -- 00606-20 Clough v
Evening Telegraph (Dundee)
Summary of Complaint
1. Jonathan Clough complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Evening Telegraph (Dundee) breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE:
Dundee City Council worker sacked over email tampering claims”, published on 30
January 2020.
2. The article reported on the case of a council worker who
had been fired for allegedly tampering with the date of an email during a
tendering process. The article stated that the “allegations centre on [a named
business]” and that “[the named business] missed the tender deadline for the
DSMT contract and, when an email from the company was forwarded to the tender
team, the date had been tampered with to make it look like it had been
submitted on time”. The article also included denials from the ex-council worker
who had said “The council has accused me of deliberately forwarding a falsified
email. There is no suggestion that I personally falsified this email. The
suggestion is that I forwarded the email after it had been falsified by someone
else.” Furthermore, the article included a comment from the spokesperson of the
named company which said “strictly speaking, we did not meet the deadline.”
3. The complainant, the owner of the named company, said
that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said there was no
need to name his company in the article and it was inaccurate to report that
the allegations had centred on his business; this had given the misleading
impression that his business was responsible for the alleged tampering of the
email, which was completely false. He also said it was inaccurate to refer to
the process as a “tender” when it was in fact a “quick quote”.
4. In addition, the complainant said that the article
misquoted the representative from his company as saying “strictly speaking, we
did not meet the deadline”, when in fact the actual quote was “it was as simple
as we missed the deadline so we weren’t considered for a contract award”. The
complainant said that this misquote changed the meaning of the company’s
statement and again misleadingly implied that the company was at fault.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the article did not claim that the company had tampered with the date
of the email – it had reported that this had allegedly been done after the
company had sent the email. It said that the reason for the council worker’s
dismissal had been confirmed by three separate sources and it had reported
these as claims, rather than as fact. It also said that it was necessary to
name the company involved, and that any difference between a “tender” and
“quick quote” was not significant.
6. The publication also provided a written record of the
conversation its reporter had with the company’s spokesperson which supported
its position that the spokesperson had said “strictly speaking”.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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
8. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concerns
that his business had been named in the article in relation to an allegation
that an email had been tampered with during a tendering process. However, the
article centred on the dismissal of the council worker, and made clear that he
had been fired because he was the one alleged to have sent a falsified email.
As the complainant had accepted that his company had sent the original email,
it was not misleading to report that the “allegations centre[d]” on the
complainant’s company.
9. The Committee noted that the article included the council
worker’s denial, and his position that “The suggestion is that I forwarded the
email after it had been falsified by someone else”. However, this did not amount
to an allegation that it was the company that had tampered with the email. The
Committee also noted that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of
the article by going to the company for comment before it was published. While there was a dispute as to what was said
by the company’s spokesperson, the publication had supplied notes of this
conversation, which indicated that they had said “strictly speaking, we did not
meet the deadline”. Given that the complainant’s position was that the company
had missed the deadline, the Committee did not consider that the difference
between the parties’ positions on the spokesperson’s comment was significant.
10. The Committee did not find that it was significantly
inaccurate to refer to a “quick quote” as a “tender” within the context of the
article.
11. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of
the article in breach of Clause 1(i). There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
13. N/A
Date complaint received: 31/01/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/04/2020