· Decision of the Complaints Committee 03096-14 Purcell v The Herald (Glasgow)
Summary of
complaint
1. Steven Purcell complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation via his solicitors that The Herald had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Cowboys hold few fears for retiring city boss”,
published on 15 December 2014.
2. The article was an interview with the retiring chief
executive of Glasgow City Council. The complainant had resigned as council
leader in 2010, and the article discussed the challenge the media coverage
following the complainant’s resignation had posed for the interviewee. The
article stated that “within days, the nature of Purcell’s unexpected emotional
breakdown had gone public”. It continued “Alcohol dependency, cocaine, gangster
connections, suicide attempts, cronyism and good-old fashioned corruption would
underpin the media narrative around Glasgow City Council for the rest of the
year”. The article went on to state: “Surely though, the Purcell saga
only exacerbated negative perceptions of Glasgow? For many it has, largely
unfairly, become a byword for and standout example of ‘council sleaze’ and
‘shady dealings’. Rather than the New Labour stamp of successive leaders,
outsiders cling to an image of a Glasgow run by a politburo of ageing
overweight men receptive to the brown envelope culture”.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate
because it alleged that he had attempted suicide, when he had only contemplated
doing so. He denied what he took to be the implication that he had “gangster
connections”, or that he had taken part in “cronyism and good old fashioned
corruption”. In addition, he said that the article inaccurately connected
him to “shady dealings” and a “brown envelope culture”. He said that he had
admitted to alcohol dependency in the past, and admitted to having occasionally
taken cocaine. However, he said that the police had fully investigated whether
he had been involved in any improper activity whilst at the council, and that
no charges had been brought. He was concerned that he had not been approached
by the newspaper, prior to publication. He said that he is now a company
director, and the alleged inaccuracies would damage his professional
reputation.
4. The newspaper referred to an article which said that
it had been revealed that the complainant “ended up in a river last month after
walking out of a drink and drug rehab clinic. Friends fear it was a suicide
attempt”. Another article reported that “according to some, Purcell
re-emerged at the clinic soaking wet, having apparently fallen into a lake”.
The complainant had been reported as saying “by Saturday, I was contemplating
suicide”, in a third article. Nevertheless, it accepted that the
complainant may not have attempted suicide, and that greater care should have
been taken to differentiate between attempting and contemplating suicide. It
offered to amend the online version of the article and publish a print
clarification on this point.
5. The newspaper referred to a number of news articles to
corroborate the other claims about the media narrative around Glasgow City
Council following Mr Purcell’s resignation. This included an article
which reported that a “gangster” had been connected to a police probe, which
was looking into allegations that the complainant had used “undue influence”,
to help a friend obtain the right to run a venue in Glasgow. The second, stated
that “police and council chiefs are investigating claims that [the complainant]
helped a politician pal get £50,000 of public cash to run The Castro venue in
Glasgow”. A third article reported that “[the complainant] is being
investigated over claims he used undue influence to help Black win the right to
run [a venue]” A fourth article reported that a Member of Parliament had
written to the police to “urge them to investigate [the complainant] amid fears
he could have been subject to undue influence during his time at the helm of
the City”.
6. The newspaper also referred to newspaper articles
which had reported that that officers from the Scottish Crime and Drugs
Enforcement Agency (SCDEA) had met the complainant and told him that he could
have become the target of a blackmail plot, after a drug dealer claimed to have
mobile phone footage of him taking cocaine. In one of these articles, Mr
Purcell was reported as saying that “[the SCDEA] told me that during the course
of an investigation they came across information that could mean I was subject
to blackmail because of the use of cocaine”. In another, it was reported that
“[the complainant] had confessed to using cocaine after police warned him he
was the target of a gangland blackmail plot”.
7. In relation to the complainant’s concern that the
article had connected him to “brown envelope culture”, the newspaper said that
this was a reference to the perceptions which outsiders held about the council,
and that the article went on to report that the interviewee did not
recognise this image of the council. Furthermore, it said that the complainant
was a young council leader, and well known to be the second youngest in
Scotland; the reference to “ageing overweight men” being receptive to the
“brown envelope culture” meant that this would not be understood as an
allegation against the complainant.
8. The newspaper referred to the article’s statement that
it was largely unfair that the events surrounding the complainant’s resignation
were perceived as an example of “council sleaze”. Nonetheless, the newspaper
said that the description of the media narrative around Glasgow Council in the
year following the complainant’s resignation conflated a number of issues such
that it created a picture which was, on balance, not warranted. It therefore
offered the complainant the opportunity to be interviewed in the newspaper, to
set the record straight.
9. The complainant was not satisfied by the newspaper’s
offer to resolve his complaint. He said that the newspaper articles referred to
by the newspaper were not established fact, and that at the time that they were
published, he had not been in the position to challenge their accuracy due to
his ill health.
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. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
i) A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee
11. The summary of the media coverage that had followed
the complainant’s resignation had framed a discussion of the reputational
challenges faced by the interviewee during his time as chief executive of Glasgow
City Council. The newspaper had reported on past coverage, and did not make
direct allegations or assertions about the complainant’s past conduct.
Nevertheless, in reporting on this coverage, the newspaper was required to take
care not to give a misleading account of the events that had surrounded the
complainant’s resignation.
12. In the coverage referred to by the newspaper, there
had been speculation of an attempted suicide. However, to report that “suicide
attempts” was one of the themes which would “underpin the media narrative
around Glasgow City Council”, was a distorted account of the media coverage,
and contained a significant implication about the complainant’s personal life,
which the newspaper accepted was inaccurate. This gave a significantly
misleading impression, and demonstrated a failure to take care over the
accuracy of the article.
13. Although the complainant challenged the claims which
had been made in the articles which had been published to which the newspaper
referred, given their context the newspaper was entitled to report that
“gangster connections”, “cronyism” and “good old-fashioned corruption” were
issues that had underpinned the media narrative following the complainant’s
resignation; whilst this was a robust characterisation of the coverage, it was
not a significantly misleading one. The Committee noted that the article had
made clear that the coverage had appeared over “the rest of the year” and had
identified issues that were said to relate to Glasgow City Council and so would
not have been understood to be references solely to the reasons for the
complainant's resignation. The complainant accepted that some elements of the
narrative related to his situation at the time of his resignation or referred
to allegations which had subsequently been made against him, which he
denied. Taken as a whole, and in light of the nature of the piece, the
Committee did not find that the article gave a significantly misleading
impression of the events surrounding the complainant’s resignation.
14. The Committee then turned to the second passage under
complaint, which drew a link between the events surrounding the complainant’s
resignation and the public perception of Glasgow. Given the media coverage
referred to by the newspaper, it was not significantly misleading to report
that Glasgow had “largely unfairly, become a byword for and stand-out example
of ‘council sleaze’ and ‘shady dealings’”. There was no breach of the Code on
this point.
15. The complainant had not contended that it was
inaccurate to state that “outsiders cling to an image of a Glasgow run by a
politburo of ageing overweight men receptive to the brown envelope culture”;
rather, he said that the article had implied, inaccurately, that he was part of
the “brown envelope culture”. The reference to a “brown envelope culture”
formed part of a general discussion of Glasgow’s reputation and referred to
“ageing overweight men”, who were identified as the parties supposedly
“receptive to a brown envelope culture”, Given the complainant’s relative
youth, the Committee reached the view that the reference would not be understood
to be a reference to the complainant. The article, therefore, did not contain
the alleged inaccuracy.
16. The newspaper received this complaint on 23 December
2014, and on 12 January 2015, offered to publish a correction making clear that
the complainant had not attempted suicide. On 23 January, the newspaper offered
the complainant the opportunity to be interviewed so that he could “set the
record straight”, and “talk about his new career”. The Committee welcomed the
newspaper’s offers, and there was no breach of Clause 2 (Opportunity to
reply).
Conclusions
17. The complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial Action Required
18. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1(i), the
Committee considered remedial action required. The Committee has the power to
require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication, the nature, extent
and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the
publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the
requirements of the Editors’ Code are met.
19. In the circumstances, and taking into account the
nature of the breach of the Code and of the publication, the Committee
concluded that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a correction with
due prominence. The newspaper should now, as offered, publish a correction
which makes clear that it was inaccurate to suggest that Mr Purcell had
attempted suicide. This should be published on page 10, or further
forward in the newspaper.
Date complaint received: 19/12/2014
Date decision issued: 28/04/2015