Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01996-22 Brown v spectator.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Gordon
Brown complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
spectator.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Gordon Brown’s Russian riches”, published on 25
February 2022. The article was updated three times after its initial
publication; the second version of the article onwards appeared under the
headline: “Gordon Brown’s office took Russian bank’s money”.
2. The
first version of the article under complaint, which appeared online and was
linked to on the website’s homepage, reported that “Labour has been trying to
much [sic] political capital out of Russian-linked donations to the Tory party”
and that “Labour might want to check a little closer to home when it comes to
checking sums given to its party grandees. For Mr S has discovered that former
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was paid over £100,000 by a newly sanctioned
Russian bank. […] The ex-Labour leader
received £124,494 for a speech he gave to Sberbank and another corporate giant,
Troika Diolog in February 2012. Sberbank, which is the largest financial
institution in Russia, was yesterday sanctioned by the US Treasury department,
as part of its punitive actions towards 13 Russian financial institutions to
'impair' the Kremlin and Russia’s economy in the wake of its invasion of
Ukraine”.
3. This
version of the article went on to report that “[d]espite the significant fee,
Brown’s speech lasted only 4 hours, equating to £500 per minute or £8 a second.
Kerching!” It also stated that “[w]ith regards to the fee he received, Brown
wrote at the time that he ‘was not receiving any money from the engagement
personally’ and that it was ‘being held by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown
for the employment of staff to support [his] ongoing involvement in public
life.’ At that time, Brown was already being paid a salary of £65,738 as the MP
for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath [sic] and earning thousands extra on the leisure
circuit. Unsurprisingly, the former PM did not respond to Steerpike’s request
for comment”.
4. The
article ended with the following: “First Peter Mandelson’s strategy firm and
now Gordon Brown’s Russian roubles. How many more Moscow skeletons will come
out of the Labour closet.”
5. The
article was updated on 26 February. The second version of the article was
amended as follows: The headline was changed from “Gordon Brown’s Russian
riches” to “Gordon Brown’s office took Russian bank’s money”; “Still, Labour
might want to check a little closer to home when it comes to checking sums
given to its party grandees. For Mr S has discovered that former Prime Minister
Gordon Brown was paid over £100,000 by a newly sanctioned Russian bank. The
ex-Labour leader received £124,494 for a speech he gave to Sberbank and another
corporate giant, Troika Diolog in February 2012” was changed to read: “An
interesting question arises though as to which donations to politicians are
legitimate and for what reason. For Mr S has discovered that the office run by
former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was given more than £100,000 by a newly
sanctioned Russian bank. The ex-Labour leader declared receiving £124,494 for a
speech he gave to Sberbank and another corporate giant, Troika Diolog in
February 2012”; and the sentence “At that time, Brown was already being paid a
salary of £65,738 as the MP for the Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath and earning
thousands extra on the circuit lecture. Unsurprisingly, the former PM did not
respond to Steerpike’s request for comment” was amended to read “At that time,
Brown was already being paid a salary of £65,738 as the MP for the Kirkaldy and
Cowdenbeath. The former PM has subsequently spoken out consistently against
Putin’s regime over recent years. Brown’s office did not initially respond to a
request for comment”.
6. The
second version of the article also omitted the following: the word “Kerching!”;
and the sentence “First Peter Mandelson’s strategy firm and now Gordon Brown’s
Russian roubles. How many more Moscow skeletons will come out of the Labour closet?”.
7. The
following sentence was also added to the end of the second version of the
article: "The Office of Gordon and
Sarah Brown was established to support Gordon and Sarah in their work and to
facilitate their ongoing involvement in public life. This includes their
charitable and pro bono work. The costs of the Office are paid from income
received by the Office for consulting and paid speaking engagements undertaken
by Gordon. Alongside paid speaking engagements Gordon and Sarah give regular
pro bono speeches to universities, charities and other organisations.”
8. The
article was again updated on 27 February.
The sentence “An interesting question arises though as to which
donations to politicians are legitimate and for what reason” was removed from
the article; “For Mr S has discovered that the office run by…” was changed to
read “But Mr S has discovered…”; and the following footnote was added to the
article:
A
previous version of this piece referred to ‘Brown’s Russian riches’ and
‘Brown’s Russian rubles’ [sic]. We are happy to make it clear that Gordon Brown
never personally benefited from the engagements or speeches referred to in this
piece.
9. The
complainant said that every version of the article included several
inaccuracies and instances of misleading and distorted information in breach of
Clause 1. Turning to the first version of the article, he said that the
headline – “Gordon Brown’s Russian riches” – and the reference to his “Russian
roubles” inaccurately suggested that he had benefitted personally from the
speech made in 2012, when he had not. He said this inaccuracy was compounded by
the first version of the article including the word “Kerching!” when referring
to the fee received. He further said that he had repeatedly made clear over the
last decade that money he received from such speeches was held by the Office of
Gordon and Sarah Brown – which had, as a result, donated over £4 million to
charitable causes – and that he does not receive a salary or any other income
from the Office. He then said that the publication would have been aware of
this fact had they visited the website of the Office, or had they reviewed
previous rulings made by the Press Complaints Commission on the subject, of
which there were several. The complainant also said that every version of the
article was inaccurate as each referred to the salary he was receiving for
being an MP in conjunction with the reference to the fee his office received
for the speech – thereby creating the misleading impression that the fee
received was intended for his personal use, as was the salary. He also said
that it was inaccurate to refer to Sberbank as a “newly sanctioned bank”, as it
suggested that the bank had been newly sanctioned at the time the complainant
had given the speech rather than in 2022. This information, in conjunction with
the phrase “kerching”, he said, gave the inaccurate impression that he had
received the money in a personal capacity.
10. The
complainant also said that the first version of the article was inaccurate as
it did not refer to the fact that he had “spoken out consistently against Mr
Putin’s regime over recent years”. He then requested the immediate removal of
the article.
11. The
complainant also said that all versions of the article were inaccurate as they
stated that he had been contacted for comment, with the first version of the
article stating that “Unsurprisingly, the former PM did not respond to
Steerpike’s request for comment”; he said that referring to the request in
these terms gave the impression that he had intentionally avoided responding to
a request for comment from the publication because he had no answer to give. He
said that, in fact, he had been contacted by a self-described “freelance
journalist”, emailing from a University email account, at 11pm the night prior
to publication. The email requested a
response within 1 hour, and did not state why a comment was being sought and
for what purpose; it also did not include any reference to the fact that a
comment was being sought for publication in a newspaper or magazine, rather
than for university work. The complainant provided the email, which said as
follows:
I wanted
to ask if you would be willing to give a statement about [a speech Mr Brown
gave in 2012] and answer the following:
Why did
Mr Brown speak at Russia's largest bank?
Why did
Mr Brown receive £124, 494.99 fee he received for the 4 hour speech?
What was
discussed in the speech? Does Mr Brown regret this now?
In the
register of interests it states that this fee was “being held by the Office of
Gordon and Sarah Brown for the employment of staff to support [his] ongoing
involvement in public life.” Could you shed more light on what this means?
This is
an incredibly fast turn around piece, and my deadline is within the next hour,
so I would really appreciate it if you could get back to me as quickly as
possible.
12. The
complainant also provided a second, follow-up email from the freelance
journalist; the follow-up email was sent two hours after the publication of the
first version of the article, and was identical to the earlier email, with the
exception of the sentence referring to the deadline for comment, which was
altered to read:
This is
an incredibly fast turn around piece, so I would really appreciate it if you
could get back to me as quickly as possible.
13. The publication said that it had invited a
comment from the complainant’s office prior to publication, and that it had
included a statement from 2012 in the article setting out the complainant’s
position with regards to the fee received: “Brown wrote at the time that he
‘was not receiving any money from the engagement personally’ and that it was
‘being held by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown for the employment of staff
to support [his] ongoing involvement in public life.’” It also said that the
article was published more than 12 hours after the initial request for comment,
which it considered to be ample time for a response to be provided. It also
said that the reference to the bank being “newly sanctioned” clearly meant that
the sanctions had been recently imposed, not that they were in place at the
time of the complainant’s speech.
14. The publication also disputed that the
headline of the first version of the article breached Clause 1; it noted that
the headline should be read in conjunction with the article, and that the
article made clear that the complainant had said in 2012 that he was not
receiving any money from the engagement personally and that it was being held
by his office. It also noted that the office in question bore the complainant’s
name and that he had significant control over it. Nevertheless, it amended the
headline and the article in the manner set out above in paragraphs 5 through 7.
It also said that it would be happy to add any comment the complainant may wish
to make to the article.
15. The
complainant said that he was not content with the amendments which had been
made to the article, and considered that further inaccuracies had been
introduced to the second version of the article. He flagged particular concerns
over the following sentence: “An interesting question arises though as to which
donations to politicians are legitimate and for what reason?” He said that this
inaccurately implied that the fee received was a “donation”, similar to those
given to political parties. He further said that the article’s reference to him
“subsequently [speaking] out consistently against Putin’s regime over recent
years” was inaccurate, as he had spoken out against the regime prior to 2012.
He reiterated that he required the article to be removed, and for an apology to
be published.
16. The
publication, while not accepting that the article had breached the Code, made further
amendments to the article as set out in paragraph 8. It also accepted that the
word “unsurprisingly” should not have been used in relation to the publication
not receiving a response from the complainant, but noted that the second
version of the headline included a claim that was not in dispute: that the
complainant’s office had received money from a Russian bank. It then noted that
it was under no obligation to refer to comments the complainant had made
against the Russian government prior to 2012, where it was not in dispute that
– since that year – he had been a vocal critic of the regime, as reported in
the article
17. The
complainant said that the publication remained in breach even following the
amendments, noting that it still referred to him having “received” money from
the bank which, he stated, was inaccurate – the fee had been received by his
office.
18. The
publication said that it was “deeply chilling” that the complainant was seeking
the removal of an article which, it said, was accurate and in the public
interest. It also said that it was not in dispute that a Russian bank had paid
an enormous fee to the complainant’s office, and that he had refused repeated
requests to comment. It then noted that it could not be inaccurate to state
that the publication had contacted the complainant for comment and that he had
refused to give one, where he had been offered repeated chances to comment on
the article post publication.
19. The
publication then said that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article
prior to publication: it had verified the House of Commons Register of Members’
Interests to verify that the complainant’s office had received the fee from the
Russian bank; had confirmed that the bank had been sanctioned; had reached out
to the complainant for comment; and the article had passed through its own team
of fact-checkers after the freelance journalist had approached it with the
story. It said that, should IPSO consider that the article required correction,
the clarification published at the bottom of the piece two days after
publication was a sufficient remedy to any alleged inaccuracy and that no
apology to the complainant was required.
20. The
complainant reiterated his position that an apology was merited, where the
inaccuracies were: serious; had caused significant personal distress; and had
caused serious harm to his reputation. To support his position on the latter
point, the complainant provided tweets from members of the public, which he
said demonstrated that readers had understood the article to mean that he had
received money personally from the engagement. One tweet stated that “ACCORDING
TO THE SPECTATOR EX LABOUR PRIME MINISTER AND FACE OF SCOTTISH LABOUR UNIONISM
GORDON BROWN POCKETED £125,000 FROM A NOW SANCTIONED RUSSIAN STATE BANK
(SERBANK) FOR PROMOTING RUSSIAN INTERESTS, BOUGHT AND SOLD FOR RUSSIAN STATE
CASH”, while another asked “is this what hes spending his rubles on?”
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
21. The
Committee understood that the complainant strongly objected to the tone of the
article and the language employed, including the reference to “Russian riches”
and “Russian roubles”. It was not in dispute that the bank in question had paid
a fee for a speech given by the complainant. The question for the Committee was
whether the article claimed inaccurately that he had received the sum
personally from the bank, rather than the correct position (as the publication
accepted) that it was received by “The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown”, or
otherwise contained inaccurate or misleading claims about the exchange.
22. The
Committee noted that the article did include references – for instance, the
phrase “kerching” and the allusion to “Moscow skeletons” – which could be read
as implying that the complainant had received the money in a personal capacity.
However, it also noted that each version of the article made clear that the
complainant “wrote at the time that he ‘was not receiving any money from the
engagement personally’ and that it was ‘being held by the Office of Gordon and
Sarah Brown for the employment of staff to support [his] ongoing involvement in
public life.’” It was therefore satisfied that, reading each version of the
article as a whole, the true position was made clear: that the money paid by
the bank for the complainant’s speech had not been received in a personal
capacity, and was held by the office of the complainant and his wife. It
further noted that, while the complainant had expressed concerns that the
headline was inaccurate, the article clarified what was meant by the headline’s
reference to “Gordon Brown’s Russian riches”: the money exchanged for a speech
delivered by the complainant, which was received by the office bearing his
name. The articles were, therefore, not
inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point.
23. The
complainant had said that the first version of the article was inaccurate as it
did not refer to the fact that he had “spoken out consistently against Mr
Putin’s regime over recent years”. The article was subsequently amended on this
point to note that the complainant had “subsequently [spoken] out consistently
against Putin’s regime over recent years”, which the complainant also
considered to be inaccurate, where it did not account for the fact that he had
spoken out against the regime prior to 2012 as well. The Committee noted that
publications have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish,
as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. It also noted that the
phrasing which the complainant found objectionable – that “[t]he former PM has
subsequently spoken out consistently against Putin’s regime over recent years”
– had been taken directly from correspondence with the complainant’s
representative, in which they had stated that he had “spoken out consistently
against Mr Putin’s regime over recent years”. In this case, the Committee did
not consider that omitting the complainant’s opposition to the regime from the
first version of the article, and omitting the complainant’s pre-2012
opposition from subsequent versions of the article, rendered it inaccurate,
misleading, or distorted. It considered this to be the case where the omitted
information did not materially affect the accuracy of the article, which was
that the complainant had delivered a speech to a since sanctioned Russian bank
in exchange for payment of a fee to his office.
24. The
correct position regarding the recipient of the money had been recorded by the
complainant in the register of members’ interests and noted in his previous
public statements, and this was repeated in the article; the complainant’s
comment was not required to establish this point. Therefore, while the Committee expressed
concern over the nature of the request for comment by the freelance journalist
– including its timing, the fact that the complainant was only given an hour to
respond, the fact that the request did not make clear that comment was being
sought for an article being published by spectator.co.uk, and the fact that the
publication had published the article prior to the second approach being made –
it noted that there was no stand-alone requirement for the publication to have
contacted the complainant prior to publication, or to refer specifically to
previous rulings or the complainant’s office’s website, except where this was
necessary to fulfil a requirement to take care under Clause 1(i). The Committee
had not established any inaccuracies in the article, and there was no failure
to take care on this point.
25. Each
version of the article referenced the complainant’s salary while he was an MP,
which the complainant considered to be in breach of Clause 1 – as he believed
that conflating his salary with the money paid by the bank gave the misleading
impression that he had received the money in a personal capacity. The Committee
reiterated that, read in their entireties, each version of the article made
clear that the complainant had not received the money in a personal capacity.
In addition, it noted that the accuracy of the reference to the salary itself
was not in dispute. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
26. The
original article had stated that, “[u]nsurprisingly, the former PM did not respond
to Steerpike’s request for comment”, which the complainant considered to be
inaccurate in circumstances where the request for comment had not been from the
publication or someone who identified themselves as Steerpike. The Committee
noted that the complainant had declined to provide a comment for publication,
either prior to publication or post-publication – notwithstanding its concerns
about the nature of this approach. It also noted that what one considers to be
“unsurprising” is necessarily subjective, and that the publication was not
making any claim of fact as to why the office had not responded to its requests
for comment. Therefore, it did not consider the article to be significantly
inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
27. The
Committee did not consider that referring to Sberbank as a “newly sanctioned
bank” was inaccurate, in circumstances where the same paragraph of the article
made clear that “Sberbank, which is the largest financial institution in
Russia, was yesterday sanctioned by the US Treasury department, as part of its
punitive actions towards 13 Russian financial institutions to 'impair' the
Kremlin and Russia’s economy in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine”.
28. The
Committee did not find that any version of the article included significant
inaccuracies or misleading information in need of correction. Nevertheless, the
Committee welcomed the steps the publication had taken to engage with the
complainant’s concerns and provide additional clarity as to the nature of the
payment.
Conclusion(s)
29. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
30. N/A
Date
complaint received: 10/03/2022
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/07/2022
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.