Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00913-21 Open
Labour v The Sun
Summary of Complaint
1. Open Labour complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article headlined
“LABOUR'S LISA BACKS SCRAP ARMY REPORT” published 24 January 2021.
2. The article reported on the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s
response to a pamphlet on issues of foreign policy published by the
Labour-affiliated group, Open Labour. The pamphlet, described in the article as
a “scrap army report” and a “loony left wish list”, discussed a new approach to
foreign policy. The article stated that this pamphlet advocated for “the Army
to be replaced with a “gender balanced and ethnically diverse” peace force”. It
went on to report that the pamphlet recommended that government “Consider a
real shift in the nature of our services from classic armed forces to [a] human
security services which would include the military but would also include
police, engineers, aid workers, or health workers and would be gender balanced
and ethnically diverse; that “the main job of the forces should be to ‘dampen
down violence rather than intervene on one side or the other’”; and that its
“central task would be to protect human security”.
3. The article also appeared online on the same day in a
substantially similar format under the headline: “LIABILTY LISA Labour’s Lisa
Nandy in fresh ‘woke’ row over abolishing Army and ‘reconsidering’ Britain’s
nuclear sub fleet”.
4. The complainant, the group that published the pamphlet,
said the article breached Clause 1 as the pamphlet did not call for the armed
forces or army to be “scrap[ped]“, “abolish[ed]” or “replaced”. Whilst the
pamphlet did advocate for a shift in the nature of the armed forces, it had
acknowledged that there would still be a role for the traditional military and
accepted that force may still need to be used in certain limited circumstances.
It also said it was inaccurate to describe the report as a “looney left wish
list” as this was not distinguished as the newspaper’s own interpretation and
the phrase was hyperlinked to a previous article with no relevance to that
under complaint.
5. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
It said that the pamphlet did call for the armed forces as we currently know
them to be subsumed into a broader human security force with significant
non-military parts. It was therefore reasonable to state that the new force
would replace the armed forces; and that the changes would amount to
effectively abolishing or scrapping the armed forces as currently structured.
Further, the publication emphasised that the text of the article contained
other quotes from the pamphlet which made clear the nature of the new human
security force, its aims and the fact it would retain a military element. The
publication also said it was entitled to describe the report as a “loony left
wish list” as claims about the political spectrum are inherently subjective. On
receipt of the complaint, the publication amended the online headline and
published the following clarification as a footnote to the online article:
CLARIFICATION: The headline on an earlier version of this
article referred to a proposal for 'abolishing' the Army. The Open Labour
proposals at issue called for the armed forces to be replaced by 'human
security services' that would 'include the military'. It has been amended.
In its first response during IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper also offered to publish the following wording in its corrections and clarifications column, which normally appears on page 2:
A 25 Jan article referred to an Open Labour proposal to
'scrap' the Army. The report at issue in fact called for the armed forces to be
replaced by 'human security services' that would 'include the military'. We are
happy to clarify.
6. In response, the complainant said these offers did not
resolve its complaint as both clarifications repeated one of the alleged
inaccuracies, namely the claim that the armed forces would be “replaced”.
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 correction, 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. Under the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice,
newspapers have the right to editorialise and campaign. Nevertheless, the
headline claims that the pamphlet called for the armed forces to be
“scrap[ped]” and “abolish[ed]” gave the strong impression that it had proposed
getting rid of the traditional military entirely. This was inaccurate as the
pamphlet clearly stated that the proposed human security force would still
retain a military element and that military force may still need to be used for
defensive or other limited purposes. The publication therefore failed to take
care not to publish inaccurate information, and both print and online headlines
were not supported by the text. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).
9. These prominent headline claims were inaccurate as to the
nature of one of the pamphlet’s key recommendations and were employed as part
of a strong critique of Open Labour’s approach to foreign policy. These
headline claims were therefore significantly inaccurate and required correction
under the terms of Clause 1(ii). Both clarifications were offered promptly and
with due prominence; appearing in the established corrections and
clarifications column and as a footnote to the amended online article
respectively. The clarifications were also offered on receipt of the complaint
and at the first instance during IPSO’s investigation respectively. However,
the complainant had maintained that the clarifications did not put the correct
position on record. Both clarifications stated that in fact the human security
force proposed by the pamphlet would “include the military”. In the Committee’s
view, this put the correct position on record, as it was the implication that
the pamphlet had suggested getting rid of the military entirely which had made
the original headlines significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause
1(ii).
10. The Committee next considered whether the articles were
inaccurate in describing the report as having recommended that the Army “be
replaced with a “gender balanced and ethnically diverse” peace force”. The
pamphlet did call for a real shift in the nature of our services from classic
armed forces to a broader human security force. It was also clear in
emphasising the difference between these old and new forces, and their
respective aims and component parts. Further, the article as a whole provided
more detail about the nature of this new force and made clear that it would
still contain a military element. In these circumstances, the publication had
not failed to take care over this description of the pamphlet’s proposals. Nor
did this constitute a significant inaccuracy or misleading claim. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
11. The description of the pamphlet as a “loony left wish
list” was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of the pamphlet. The
Committee noted that that where a given political party or grouping is placed
on that spectrum is subjective and would be understood as a statement of
opinion rather than fact in this context. Further, the complainant had
expressed concern that this statement was hyperlinked to a different article.
It was not clear whether the complainant argued that this constituted a breach
of Clause 1. In any event, newspapers regularly link to content that may be of
interest to readers; the linked article contained no claims about the
complainant or their pamphlet so the Committee did not consider that the
hyperlink rendered the article under complaint misleading or inaccurate. There
was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
13. Both clarifications put the correct position on record
and were printed, or offered in the case of the print clarification, promptly
and with due prominence. The print clarification should now be published to
avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 03/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/06/2021
Back to ruling listing