· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04026-15 Baker v The Argus (Brighton)
Summary of
complaint
1. Trudy Baker complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Argus had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a series of articles:
“Animal activists force children’s charity to halt fundraising night” and
“Despicable attack on a vital children’s charity”, both published on 2 June
2015, “Post wasn’t ‘cruel joke’”, published on 3 June 2015, “Greyhound racers
raise thousands for charity”, published on 5 June 2015, “£10k for charity from
dog racers”, published on 8 June 2015, and “Calling dog lovers to help re-home
gentle greyhounds”, published on 11 June 2015.
2. The newspaper reported that a children’s charity had
cancelled a fundraising event at a greyhound racing stadium after supporters of
the campaign group Greyt Exploitations sent employees of the charity “abusive”
messages on social media.
3. The complainant, the coordinator of Greyt
Exploitations, complained that the coverage was significantly misleading. She
said that the reports had misrepresented the campaign and the nature of the
correspondence sent to the charity. She had asked supporters to email the
Chief Executive of the charity to politely ask him to cancel the event. It was
inaccurate to report that the charity had received “threats” or a “series of
aggressive messages”. The complainant was particularly concerned that headlines
had referred to “threats” and a “reign of hatred”.
4. While the complainant accepted that the charity’s
Chief Executive had been sent an “extremely distasteful” message, the message
had not been threatening and it had been sent by an individual who was not
affiliated with Greyt Exploitations. The comment on Greyt Exploitations’
Facebook page had read “sent a polite e-mail to ask if they are going to
arrange a day at the hospital so we can all go and bet on the children.” The
article had reported the Chief Executive of the charity as saying that “when we
received messages, including that the activists should go to the baby unit and
bet on which baby ‘would and would not make it’…we knew we were dealing with
dangerous individuals and felt enough was enough.” The person who had posted
the message had later clarified that she had meant that that the children could
race around the ward and spectators would bet on the winner, and the
complainant was concerned that the paraphrasing of the message had made it
sound more sinister and was significantly inaccurate.
5. The complainant raised a number of additional concerns
about the accuracy of the coverage. She said that Greyt Exploitations is a
greyhound protection and welfare group, not an animal rights campaign; the
organisation shared work contact details, not “personal contact details”, of
employees of the charity; it was misleading to include reference to animal
rights groups that had waged violent campaigns; a national newspaper, rather
the Greyt Exploitations, had claimed that 40,000 dogs had been injured as part
of commercial dog racing in the past decade; and the reported amount of money
raised by the greyhound racing industry, following the cancellation of the
event, represented conjecture as there was not a separate fund for donations.
The complainant was also concerned that the article had not reported
information about the motivation for the campaign.
6. The complainant also considered that the newspaper’s
coverage represented harassment, in breach of Clause 4. In particular, she
raised concerns that she did not believe she had been granted enough time to
respond to a request for comment, prior to publication of an article, and that
the short time-frame had put her under unnecessary pressure.
7. The newspaper said that the coverage accurately
reported the comments made by the Chief Executive of the charity, including his
comments that the campaign had been “intimidating and threatening”. The
newspaper said that it was reasonable to describe people who responded to the
Facebook campaign and subsequently emailed or contacted the charity via social
media as supporters of the complainant’s campaign. The comment cited in the
article was ill-advised, and it was reported that this had been removed from
the complainant’s website. The coverage reported that the complainant had
apologised for any offence caused. The exact wording of the comment was not significant
in the context of the coverage as a whole.
8. The newspaper said that the complainant had not been
harassed.
9. The newspaper did not accept that it had breached the
Editors’ Code of Practice. Nonetheless, it offered to publish a letter from the
complainant.
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.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 4 (Harassment)
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation,
harassment or persistent pursuit.
Findings of the Committee
11. The newspaper had been entitled to report the views
expressed by the Chief Executive of the children’s charity about messages
received, and his explanation of why the charity had felt it necessary to
cancel the event. The comments had been attributed to the Chief Executive and
made clear that the charity had experienced the messages as “abuse” and
“intimidating and threatening social media”. The complainant accepted that she
had encouraged supporters to contact members of the charity directly, and that
the charity had subsequently received a “distasteful” message. She was not in a
position to assess the nature of any other private messages received by the
charity, and it was not disputed that the charity had been so concerned by the
messages it had received that it decided to cancel its fundraising event. In
these circumstances the description of the communications was not significantly
misleading. The newspaper had also reported the complainant’s position that “at
no time have we ever threatened or used violence”. There was no breach of the
Code on this point.
12. While the person who had posted the message
suggesting that people “bet on the children” had later sought to clarify that
she had been referring to the children racing, and not betting on who would
survive, the message was open to interpretation; it was clear that the charity
had understood that it had the latter meaning, and was extremely concerned by
it. The newspaper’s reporting of the message was not significantly inaccurate
or misleading.
13. The Committee considers headlines in the context of
the stories that accompany them rather than as standalone statements. The text
of the coverage had made clear the nature of the concerns about the behaviour
of the campaign group and Greyt Exploitations’ position on the matter. In this
context the headlines had not been significantly misleading.
14. The individual who had posted the message had written
on Greyt Exploitations’ social media page, and appeared to have contacted the
charity in response to their campaign. It was therefore not inaccurate or
misleading to describe her as a “supporter”. The coverage also included
comments from a member of Greyt Exploitations which said that they did not know
the individual who had posted the message in question.
15. The distinction between sharing work contact details
and personal contact details, when it was not disputed that the contact details
provided were those of individuals and not for the charity more generally, was
not so significant that it would require correction under the Code. Similarly,
the fact that it was a newspaper that had claimed that 40,000 dogs had been
killed on Britain’s race tracks, in the context of an article about Greyt
Exploitations, and not the charity itself, did not represent a significant
inaccuracy.
16. The newspaper had not been obliged to include all
information provided by the complainant, nor had it been required to present a
detailed explanation about the campaign’s objectives. The omission of this
information was not significantly misleading. The newspaper’s reference to
animal rights groups which had engaged in violent campaigns was not inaccurate
or misleading. The coverage had made clear the allegations against Greyt
Exploitations, and had not suggested that they engaged in violence. There was
no breach of Clause 1.
17. The articles had made clear that members of the
greyhound racing industry had launched the appeal, which had raised more than
£9000. It was therefore not inaccurate to report that the industry had raised
this money. There was no breach of the Code on this point.
18. The terms of Clause 4 generally relate to the conduct
of journalists during the newsgathering process. The publication of a number of
articles about the campaign did not constitute harassment. The complainant had
engaged with the newspaper, and there was no suggestion that the complainant
had asked the newspaper to desist from contacting her. There was no breach of
Clause 4.
19. Although it did not find a breach of the Code, the
Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to publish a letter from the
complainant as a positive response to the complaint.
Conclusions
20. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 09/06/2015
Date decision issued: 03/09/2015