· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00776-15 Nielsen v Daily Mirror
Summary of
complaint
1. Magnus Nielsen complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Manifestoads”, published on 16 April 2015.
The online version of the article included video footage of the complainant.
2. The complainant was a prospective MP at the time of
publication, running as a candidate for UKIP. The article reported that he had
attended a rally in Westminster which had been organised by Mothers Against
Radical Islam and Sharia (MARIAS); he made a speech at the rally in which he
warned of the threat which he believes Islam poses to democracy.
3. The complainant was concerned that an undercover
reporter had approached him to discuss the issues, and had secretly filmed
their conversation. The reporter had then joined the complainant, along with
several other demonstrators, in a pub, without disclosing that he was a
journalist and using an assumed name. The complainant said that this breached
Clause 10.
4. He also said that the article was a smear which sought
to discredit him among voters, and had quoted his speech at the rally
selectively in order to distort his message. He provided the text of his full
speech to demonstrate this. He said that the article implied that he was a
member of the English Defence League (EDL), when he is not, and that MARIAS as
a group did not have links with the EDL, as the article had reported.
5. The newspaper said that the investigation had been
undertaken by a freelance journalist, and the story had been purchased by the
newspaper after the investigation was complete. It confirmed that the
journalist had covertly filmed the complainant, and joined him in a pub without
disclosing that he was a working reporter.
6. The newspaper said that the use of subterfuge and
misrepresentation was both necessary and justified on this occasion. It said
that MARIAS has links with far-right groups, and that these links are at odds
with UKIP’s position that membership is not open to those who are members of,
or have previously been members of, far-right organisations. It said that the
Editor believed that it was of great public interest that the electorate was
fully informed of the true opinions of parliamentary candidates. This
particular rally was targeted as it was being organised by an association that
openly welcomes far-right extremists. It was believed that the complainant
would privately express critical views of Islam generally, as opposed to the
views on radical Islam which he had voiced in his public speech at the rally.
7. The newspaper provided historical screenshots of the
complainant’s Facebook page, showing posts about Islam which had subsequently
been deleted. The posts included comments such “Islam is organised crime under
religious camouflage” and “historically, whenever politically-activated Muslims
gain power they remove freedom of speech and human rights”. The newspaper said
that these views could legitimately be described as “radical”. In contrast, the
newspaper said that earlier this year the complainant had expressed a desire to
license mosques, so that only licensed imams could preach. It said that this
view demonstrated that he now believed that there could be moderate Muslims and
lawful practice of Islam, and showed moderation of his earlier views.
Separately, the journalist was also concerned for his security at the event; he
was worried that any visible camera would be taken from him or damaged.
8. After the freelance journalist brought the story to
the newspaper, the news team raised it at an editorial conference. During
discussions between the Editor and an editorial executive it was decided that
the journalist had gathered sufficient evidence that subterfuge was justified
on this occasion. The Editor believed that it was justifiable to place in the
public domain the question of whether the complainant’s role as a UKIP
candidate was compatible with his “extreme beliefs” about Islam, this concern
having been highlighted to the newspaper by the freelance journalist when he
presented it with the story.
9. The newspaper noted that the article had not stated
that the complainant was a member of the EDL, and provided evidence that
members of the EDL had been encouraged to attend the rally: in a promotional
video MARIAS’s leader had stated that “unfortunately whether we like it or not,
if you support the English Defence League you are automatically deemed as being
a racist Islamophobe. Which is complete nonsense…MARIAS takes away that. So
everybody, no matter who you are affiliated with, can stand together under one
umbrella.”
Relevant Code Provisions
10. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material
acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by
intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the
unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing
digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge,
including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the
public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other
means.
The public interest
The public interest includes, but is not confined to:…
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action
or statement of an individual or organisation.
Whenever the public interest is invoked, the Regulator
will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that
publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication,
would be in the public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at
the time.
Findings of the Committee
11. The Editors’ Code makes clear that subterfuge and
misrepresentation can be justified in order to prevent the public from being
misled by the statement of an individual. During the campaign period for a
General Election it is of great importance that the public are not misled by
candidates running for public office.
12. The rally had been a public one, at which the
complainant had addressed the crowd. The journalist had been entitled to attend
the event; his attendance was not an act of misrepresentation or subterfuge.
After the complainant had finished speaking, the journalist questioned him
about the views which he had just publicly expressed, without revealing that he
was a journalist. When speaking to the complainant he had filmed the
conversation using a hidden camera, in doing so he had engaged in
misrepresentation and subterfuge, and so the Committee considered whether these
actions breached Clause 10.
13. In this case, the newspaper had been able to show
that the complainant’s public views on Islam had varied over time, and it was
reasonable for the journalist and newspaper to believe that they would be
unable to ascertain his true views of Islam without employing subterfuge and
misrepresentation. The use of a hidden camera, and the journalist’s failure to
disclose his identity, was justified in the public interest, in order to
prevent the public from potentially being misled by the actions of the
complainant.
14. When the newspaper had been presented with the story
by the freelance journalist it had appropriately and satisfactorily considered
the issues raised under the Code. The Committee found that the newspaper had
satisfied the requirements of the public interest section of the Code; there
was no breach of Clause 10.
15. The Committee was satisfied, having had sight of the
complainant’s full speech from the rally, that the quotations used in the
article had not given a distorted impression of the complainant’s message.
Further, the article had not stated that the complainant was a member of the
EDL. Given that it was clear that members of the EDL had been encouraged to
attend the rally, the Committee found that it was not significantly misleading
to state that MARIAS has links with the EDL. Further, the newspaper was
entitled to question and criticise the complainant’s views on Islam. There was
no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 23/04/2015
Date decision issued: 24/07/2015