· Decision of the Complaints Committee 02626-15 Scott v Bedford Times & Citizen
Summary of
complaint
1. Helen Scott complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Bedford Times & Citizen had breached Clause
13 (Financial journalism) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Solar farm could raise £1m for community projects”, published on 11
December 2014.
2. The article reported on plans for a community-run
solar farm, Harrold Renewable Energy (HARE), in the local area and outlined
some of the potential benefits of the project.
3. The complainant said that one of the directors of HARE
is an employee of Johnston Press, the newspaper’s publishing group; she was
concerned that he could have worked with the newspaper in the preparation of
the article. She said that the employee in question would benefit financially
if the plans for the solar farm were successful. The complainant is involved in
an opposition group to the solar farm, and so she therefore considered that she
was directly affected by the alleged breach of the Code and asked IPSO to
consider her complaint on that basis. She said that the opposition group was
not asked for comment prior to publication, but when articles criticising the
solar farm were published, HARE’s comments were always included.
4. The newspaper explained that the employee who is a
director of HARE has no influence over the newspaper’s editorial content, nor
of any other newspaper or website within the same publishing group; he works in
the marketing and research department. The information for the article had been
supplied by HARE following an interview with another director of the
organisation, following submission of its planning application. Since
publication of the article under complaint, other articles had been published
which reported critical views of the solar farm plans; the newspaper believed
that its coverage was balanced. It offered to publish a reader’s letter from
the complainant in which she could set out the views of her campaign group.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 13 (Financial journalism)
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists
must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance
of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in
whose performance they know that they or their close families have a
significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or
financial editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or
through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written
recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.
Findings of the Committee
6. There was no suggestion that the journalist who had
written the article was in any way connected with HARE, or had a financial interest
in the organisation. The concern that an employee in the publishing group’s
marketing and research department had provided information for the article,
which was purely speculation, did not raise any issues under the Code. In any
case, the article under complaint was a news item, and did not encourage
readers to buy or sell shares or securities. The terms of Clause 13 were not
engaged.
Conclusions
7. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 09/04/2015
Date decision issued: 26/05/2015