Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01791-21 Brewerton v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Keith Brewerton, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of his son Aled
Brewerton, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 10
(Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Viral council Zoom star Jackie Weaver is a Scot and says
chaotic meeting would never have gone so far here”, published on 12 February
2021.
2.
The article, which appeared online only, reported on the response to a parish
council meeting which had a few earlier days ‘gone viral’, and had been widely
covered by the press. The article was predominantly based on the comments of
one of the meeting participants, and included a thirty-second clip of the
meeting.
3.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He
first said that the video of the meeting included with the article had been
altered, with sequences changed and interactions omitted. He said that these
alterations meant that the video was not an accurate or correct record of what
had happened during the meeting. He also
said that he considered the article to be inaccurate as it condoned the actions
of Jackie Weaver, and he considered that her actions had been improper.
4.
The complainant also considered that the video included in the article breached
Clause 2, as he appeared in the video and said that he had not been informed at
the time that the meeting was being recorded. Both complainants had been in
their home when the video was recorded, therefore the complainant said that the
use of the video intruded on their private life; they did accept, however, that
the video had been uploaded to Youtube prior to the article’s publication. The
complainant further noted that, while the public were able to watch the
meeting, this was via a link only, and approximately 5 to 6 members of the
public attended the meeting.
5.
The complainant also said that he considered that Clause 3 had been breached by
the article, as it included material which was not compliant with the terms of
the Clause; namely, the video, which he considered had been recorded illegally.
6.
Turning to Clause 4, the complainant said that he considered this Clause had
been breached as he did not consider that publication of the article had been
handled sensitively. He believed that the publication should have been more
sensitive, where the viral video had led to great shock amongst his close and
extended family.
7.
The complainant then said that he considered that the use of the video breached
Clause 10, as he believed it had been recorded illegally on a secondary device,
such as an iPad; he said he knew this was the case as had it been recorded
directly from a computer, it would have shown a recording logo and there wasn’t
one present in the video. He said that the press had a duty to ensure the video
had not been recorded illegally, and that it had not done so in this case.
8.
The publication said it did not accept that the article breached the Editors’
Code. It said that the accuracy of the video could be supported both by viewing
the full video of the meeting – which was publicly available and showed the
events of the meeting – and the council’s minutes of the meeting. It did not
accept, therefore, that the video could be said to be inaccurate.
9.
Turning to the complainants’ Clause 2 and Clause 10 concerns, it noted that the
video was both publicly available and viral at the time of the article’s
publication, and that the council’s meeting minutes made clear that a recording
of the meeting could be made available on request. The publication also said
that it could not comment on how the video was recorded, as it was not in a
position to know the circumstances in which the recording was made; it also,
therefore, could not be said to have sought to obtain a video recorded by a
hidden camera. With these factors in mind, it did not accept that the article
or video could represent a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 10.
10.
The publication did not accept that the complainants’ concerns framed under
Clause 4 engaged the terms of the Clause, where the article under complaint did
not relate to a case of grief or shock.
11.
The complainant said that the publication could not rely on the published
minutes pf the meeting to support its position that the video was available to
the public, as the minutes were inaccurate.
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
2 (Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii)
It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public
or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
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.
Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In
cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made
with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These
provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
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 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.
Findings
of the Committee
12.
The Committee noted first that it was not in dispute that the thirty-second
clip of the meeting included with the article was an excerpt from the recording
of the meeting. It was clear from the description of the meeting included in
the text of the article that it was only an excerpt, rather than an unedited
recording of the meeting in full, and that it had been included as an
illustration of some of the exchanges which had taken place during the meeting.
In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the publication of
the video in this format was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or
distorted; there was no breach of Clause 1
13. While the Committee understood that the
complainant had concerns that the article condoned the actions of Ms Weaver, it
noted that concerns that articles are biased or one-sided do not – in and of
themselves – engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. As such, there was no
breach of the Clause 1 on this point.
14.
The terms of Clause 2 make clear that, when considering individual’s reasonable
expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the extent to which the
information complained of is in the public domain. In this instance, the
complainant considered that the video included in the article – showing him and
his son in their home – breached the terms of the Clause. However, the video
showed proceedings at a public meeting held by a public body. Further, the
video was available on YouTube at the time of the article’s publication, and
had been viewed well over a million times. In these circumstances, the
Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the video. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 2.
15.
The complainant had not alleged that the publication, or anyone working on its
behalf, engaged in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit; furthermore,
the complainant had not said that he had been approached by a journalist
working for the publication who persisted in questioning, telephoning, pursuing
or photographing him or his son once asked to desist. For this reason, the
Committee found that there was no breach of Clause 3.
16.
While the Committee understood that the video going “viral” had caused distress
to the complainant, it noted that the terms of Clause 4 generally relate to
cases involving bereavement, injury, and crime. Where the content of the
article under complaint related to a parish council meeting, the Committee did
not consider that the article related to the complainant’s personal grief or
shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.
17.
The terms of Clause 10 make clear that the press should not seek to publish
material obtained by using hidden cameras; the purpose of the Clause is to
regulate the publication and acquisition of material obtained using clandestine
devices and misrepresentation. In this case, the publication did not know
exactly how the video had been recorded; however, neither party disputed that
at the time the article was published, the video was widely available in the
public domain. The basis advanced by the complainant for claiming the video had
been obtained using a clandestine recording device was that it appeared not to
have been recorded using the internal recording in the computer programme used
to host the virtual meeting. While the Committee could not establish with
certainty how the meeting was recorded, it did not agree that the use of a
secondary device to make the recording amounted to a “clandestine” device for
the purposes of Clause 10. The video depicted a publicly accessible meeting,
and whether it had been recorded using an in-program recording function or a
secondary recording device had no bearing on the content of the video. Explicit
reference was made in the course of the meeting to the fact it was being
recorded, when a participant referred to a copy being sent to a monitoring
officer. Furthermore, the minutes of the meeting stated that a recording of the
meeting was available. The Committee did not, therefore, consider that the
publication engaged in any form of subterfuge or misrepresentation in the
recording of the meeting.
18. Furthermore, at the time the article was
published, the video from which the clip was extracted was widely circulating
in the public domain and had been viewed over one million times; the newspaper
had not, therefore, been engaged, either directly or through an agent, in
making or procuring the recording. It could not therefore be said that the
newspaper had sought to obtain material obtained by using a hidden camera, and
there was breach of Clause 10.
Conclusion(s)
19.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
20.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 02/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/02/2022
Back to ruling listing