· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04036-15 Solash v The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. Richard Solash, Director of Communications of the
Parliamentary Assembly for the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in
Europe (OSCE PA) acting on behalf of OSCE PA Secretary General Spencer Oliver
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity for reply) in an article
headlined “Fifa isn’t the only fiefdom to cast its shadow”, published on 1 June
2015.
2. The article was an opinion piece in which the columnist
expressed the view that the Fifa scandal was one example of the tendency of
international bureaucracies to become the “personal fiefdoms of their
presidents or directors-general, and sink into lethargy or corruption, followed
by brazen defiance when challenged”; the sub-headline referred to “leaders who
believe they are above the law”. The columnist alleged that a number of
organisations fitted this pattern, including UNESCO, the Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change, the World Health Organisation, and the OSCE PA,
described as a “smaller example” of the phenomenon.
3. The article included a number of claims about Mr
Oliver’s term as Secretary General. Noting that he had served continuously for
all the organisation’s 22 years, it alleged that he had “fended off challenges
and tried to frustrate attempts to reform the constitution”. It said at the age
of 77, Mr Oliver had “reluctantly conceded that he might like to think about
letting somebody else play with the limos and tax-free, Danish-diplomatic
status that go with the job”, but claimed that he “seems intent on influencing
the choice of his successor”.
4. The complainant denied that the OSCE PA was a
“personal fiefdom”, and said that that the newspaper’s justification for this
description was based entirely on inaccurate allegations about Mr Oliver’s
conduct as Secretary General. He said that the OSCE PA does not have a
constitution; it has rules of procedure. Mr Oliver had not tried to “frustrate
attempts to reform” the OSCE PA’s rules of procedure. He had not made any
attempts to “influence the choice of his successor”, nor did he have access to
“limos”. He said that OSCE PA in fact maintains an ordinary van, a mini-van and
a hatchback for the use of its staff, and there are no drivers. He said that Mr
Oliver paid full US taxes, but had Danish diplomatic status, as did all
expatriate employees of the OSCE PA. The complainant said that by referring to
Mr Oliver among a group of proven wrongdoers at other organisations, it had
suggested that he was guilty by association.
5. The newspaper said that the article was based on
material provided by a credible and well placed confidential source, and denied
that there was any breach of the Code. It said that the complainant had not
demonstrated any inaccuracies, beyond minor points relating to the amenities
provided to Mr Oliver. The newspaper said that, prior to publication, the
journalist had seen emails from an individual who Mr Oliver had attempted to
dissuade from standing in the contest to succeed him. The source told the
journalist that Mr Oliver had frustrated attempts to reform the constitution of
the OSCE PA and had showed him emailed evidence from other well-placed
individuals in support of this position. The newspaper said it was unable to provide
further details because of the need to protect its confidential sources.
6. The newspaper denied that the article contained any
significant inaccuracies. It noted that in 2010, a Latvian politician had
contested the election for Secretary General of the OSCE PA, and lost to Mr
Oliver. The newspaper said that it had it “on good authority” that Mr Oliver
opposed any limitation of the Secretary General’s term of office. Following the
eventual adoption of a rule in 2013 limiting the term of office, the newspaper
said it was confident that Mr Oliver had stated that the new rule did not apply
to him because he was in office before it came into force. It also said that a
reference in the rule to there being “exceptional circumstances” in which a
further renewal of the term of office may be considered was included after
pressure from Mr Oliver’s “allies” on the Rules Committee.
7. The complainant accepted that Mr Oliver had defeated
another candidate in the 2010 election but denied that Mr Oliver opposed a rule
change limiting the Secretary General’s term of office, or that the reference
to “exceptional circumstances” was included after pressure from Mr Oliver’s
“allies”. It noted that the newspaper had failed to provide evidence to
substantiate these assertions.
8. The complainant said that Mr Oliver did not believe he
had stated that the new rule on the Secretary General’s term of office did not
apply to him, and that the newspaper had failed to substantiate its assertion
that Mr Oliver had made such a statement. He said that there was however a
general understanding that Mr Oliver could seek further re-election on the
basis of his contract, and the rules of procedure in force at the time he was
elected and re-elected. The complainant said that Mr Oliver had supported every
rule change proposed by the Rules Committee of the Assembly except for one
proposed change at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the OSCE PA in
February 2015. The rule change related to the manner in which amendments would
be considered by the assembly in annual sessions, which Mr Oliver believed
would be impractical and unworkable; the proposal was withdrawn in view of Mr
Oliver’s opposition. The complainant said that Mr Oliver only attempted to
dissuade one potential candidate from standing in the contest to succeed him.
9. During direct correspondence with the newspaper, the
complainant and Mr Oliver had requested a retraction and an apology for the
alleged inaccuracies. The newspaper responded by offering to publish a
clarification, pending Mr Oliver’s confirmation on whether he has use of
official cars and on whether he had tax-free Danish-diplomatic status. The
complainant responded on 16 June, providing the requested clarification, and
reiterated his request that the newspaper publish a formal retraction and
apology. The newspaper offered to publish the following clarification in its
“Corrections and clarifications” column to address the complainant’s concerns:
In an opinion column about the unaccountability of
international quangos ("Fifa isn’t the only fiefdom to cast its
shadow", Jun 1) Matt Ridley mentioned the 22-year tenure of Spencer Oliver
as secretary general of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for
Security and Co-Operation. This was not intended to imply any wrongdoing on Mr
Oliver’s part. Mr Oliver states that he pays full US taxes on his OSCE PA
salary and that the vehicles to which he had access while in office comprised a
13-year-old van, a six-year-old minivan and a two-year-old hatchback, rather
than the “limos” to which our article referred. We are happy to make this
clear.
The newspaper also offered to publish a clarification
which included the words: “[Mr Oliver] is happy with the outcome of the process
for choosing the lead candidate for his successor.” Nevertheless, the newspaper
did not accept that it was significantly misleading to refer to Mr Oliver’s
access to “limos”, and his “tax-free status”. The complainant rejected this
offer on the basis was not a retraction or apology, and did not deal with all
of the alleged inaccuracies.
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)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 14 (Confidential Sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect
confidential sources of information.
Findings of the Committee
11. The article had included the OSCE PA and its
Secretary General among a group of organisations which it claimed were
“personal fiefdoms”, whose leaders “believe they are above the law” and are
subject to “lethargy or corruption, followed by brazen defiance when
challenged”. As support for this characterisation, it had referred to the
length of Mr Oliver’s tenure in office and claimed that Mr Oliver had “fended
off challenges and tried to frustrate attempts to reform the constitution”, and
more recently “seems intent on influencing the choice of his successor”. It had
also referred to the alleged amenities of his role – “limos and tax-free,
Danish-diplomatic status” in a manner that tended to support the description of
the OSCE PA as a “fiefdom”. By its account, these claims – and by extension the
allegation that the OSCE PA fit the pattern described in the column – were
based on information provided by a confidential source, which it was obliged to
protect under the terms of Clause
14.
12. The newspaper had been unable to demonstrate to the
Complaints Committee the accuracy of its claim of fact that the complainant had
“tried to frustrate attempts to reform the OSCE PA’s constitution”. It relied
on information provided by a confidential source, which it said included emails
from other well-placed individuals, in support of this claim and explained that
the statement referred to Mr Oliver’s opposition to a possible limitation of
the Secretary General’s term of office. However, this was disputed by Mr
Oliver.
13. The newspaper was entitled to make use of information
provided by a confidential source. However, it had relied on this source
without taking additional steps to investigate or corroborate the information
on which the article’s characterisation was based, which might include
obtaining additional on-the-record information or contacting the complainant to
obtain his comment before publication. As the newspaper considered itself
prevented by Clause 14 from disclosing the information provided by its
source, it was unable to demonstrate that it had taken care not to publish
inaccurate information.
14. It was inaccurate to report that Mr Oliver enjoyed
access to limos in his role, and the reference to his tax-free status
misleadingly suggested he paid no tax, when in fact, he paid full taxes in the
USA. Taken in isolation, these were potentially trivial points, but taken
together, they significantly contributed to the broader implication that Mr Oliver
enjoyed a “personal fiefdom”, and that he enjoyed various lifestyle benefits as
a consequence. They were significantly misleading in this broader context.
15. It was not in dispute that Mr Oliver had successfully
defeated another candidate in his re-election to the role of Secretary General
in 2010, and that he had not been successfully challenged for the role during
his 22 years as Secretary General. It was therefore not misleading to claim
that Mr Oliver had “fended off challenges”, during his time as Secretary
General. Neither was it misleading for newspaper to claim that Mr Oliver seemed
“intent on influencing the choice of his successor”, where the complainant
accepted that he had attempted to dissuade a candidate from running in the
election to succeed him.
16. However, the length of Mr Oliver’s tenure, and his
ability to “fend off challenges”, were not sufficient alone to justify the very
serious allegation that the OSCE PA, under Mr Oliver’s leadership, had become a
“personal fiefdom” that had “sunk” into “lethargy or corruption”. The complaint
was upheld as a breach of Clause 1 (i).
17. The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to
clarify the taxes Mr Oliver paid, and his access to “limos”. However, the
clarification offered was insufficient: it did not address the most serious
unsubstantiated claim that Mr Oliver had “tried to frustrate attempts to reform
the OSCE PA’s constitution”. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (ii).
18. Clause 2 requires that a fair opportunity for reply
to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called; it does not require that
newspapers seek to obtain comments prior to publication, nor does it require
the publication of retractions or apologies. The complainant was in direct
correspondence with the newspaper, but did not request an opportunity to reply
to the inaccuracies. The newspaper had not denied the complainant a fair
opportunity to reply, and there was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
19. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
20. The established inaccuracies supported the
significant claim that Mr Oliver enjoyed a “personal fiefdom”. In circumstances
where the newspaper had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate
information, and not offered to correct these significant inaccuracies, the
Committee concluded that the appropriate remedy was an adjudication. The
article was published on page 21 of the newspaper, and the Committee required
the publication of an adjudication upholding the complaint on this page, or
further forward in the newspaper. The headline must make clear that IPSO
has upheld the complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed in
advance. It should also be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to
the full adjudication appearing on the homepage for 24 hours; it should then be
archived online in the usual way. Should the newspaper intend to continue to
publish the article online, without amendment, in light of this decision it
should publish the adjudication in full, beneath the headline.
21. The terms of the adjudication to be published are as
follows:
Richard Solash, acting on behalf of OSCE PA Secretary
General Spencer Oliver, complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Opportunity for reply) in an article headlined “Fifa isn’t the only fiefdom to
cast its shadow”, published on 1 June 2015. IPSO upheld the complaint as a
breach of the Editors’ Code and required The Times to publish this decision by
its Complaints Committee as a remedy to the breach.
The article had included the OSCE PA and its Secretary
General among a group of organisations which it claimed were “personal
fiefdoms”, whose leaders “believe they are above the law” and are subject to
“lethargy or corruption, followed by brazen defiance when challenged”. As
support for this characterisation, it had referred to the length of Mr Oliver’s
tenure in office and claimed that Mr Oliver had “fended off challenges and
tried to frustrate attempts to reform the constitution”, and more recently
“seems intent on influencing the choice of his successor”. It had also referred
to the alleged amenities of his role – “limos and tax-free, Danish-diplomatic
status” in a manner that tended to support the description of the OSCE PA as a
“fiefdom”. By the newspaper’s account, these claims – and by extension the
allegation that the OSCE PA fit the pattern described in the column – were
based on information provided by a confidential source, which it was obliged to
protect under the terms of Clause 14.
The newspaper had been unable to demonstrate to the
Complaints Committee the accuracy of its claim of fact that the complainant had
“tried to frustrate attempts to reform the OSCE PA’s constitution”. It was
entitled to make use of information provided by a confidential source. However,
it had relied on this source without taking additional steps to investigate or
corroborate the information on which the article’s characterisation was
based, which might include obtaining additional on-the-record information or
contacting the complainant to obtain his comment before publication. As the
newspaper considered itself prevented by Clause 14 from disclosing the
information provided by its source, it was unable to demonstrate that it had
taken care not to publish inaccurate information.
It was inaccurate to report that Mr Oliver enjoyed access
to limos in his role and the reference to his tax-free status misleadingly
suggested he paid no tax, when in fact, he paid full taxes in the USA. Taken
together, these points significantly contributed to the broader implication
that Mr Oliver enjoyed a “personal fiefdom”, and that he enjoyed various
lifestyle benefits as a consequence. They were significantly misleading in this
broader context.
It was not misleading to claim that Mr Oliver had “fended
off challenges”, during his time as Secretary General. Neither was it
misleading for newspaper to claim that Mr Oliver seemed “intent on influencing
the choice of his successor”, where the complainant accepted that he had
attempted to dissuade a candidate from running in the election to succeed him.
However, the length of Mr Oliver’s tenure, and his ability to “fend off
challenges”, were not sufficient alone to justify the very serious allegation
that the OSCE PA, under Mr Oliver’s leadership, had become a “personal fiefdom”
that had “sunk” into “lethargy or corruption”. The complaint was upheld as a
breach of Clause 1 (i).
The clarification offered by the newspaper was
insufficient: it did not address the most serious unsubstantiated claim that Mr
Oliver had “tried to frustrate attempts to reform the OSCE PA’s constitution”.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (ii).
Date complaint received: 15/07/15
Date decision issued: 30/11/15