Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 04283-21 Friel v thejc.com
Summary
of Complaint
1. Chris
Friel complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thejc.com
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Lie that won’t die: Israel practises ‘apartheid’”, published on 29
April 2021.
2. The
article was an opinion piece, written by an academic in the field of political
science. It was responding to the then-recent publication of a Human Rights
Watch (HRW) report ‘A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crime of
Apartheid and Persecution’. The article stated that Israeli “counter-terror
measures” were “condemned” by the report’s authors on the basis that “the
authors claimed (without foundation)” that the measures “were used ’to advance
demographic objectives’ without ‘legitimate security justifications.’” It went on to say that ”[t]he accusations
were facilitated by the complete absence of any reference to the thousands of
victims of Palestinian terror — as if Israeli Jews were not entitled to human
rights or security”. The article was accompanied by a photograph of a man,
holding up a sign with the word ‘apartheid’ mis-spelt.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as,
contrary to the article’s position that the HRW report authors had advanced
claims “without foundation” regarding the Israeli’s authorities use of
counter-terror measures “’to advance demographic measures’ without ‘legitimate
security concerns’”, he considered that there was in fact foundation within the
report for the authors’ claims. The complainant noted that the report quoted a
2005 statement by Ariel Sharon, a previous prime-minister of Israel, in which
he had said that “[t]here’s no need to hide behind security arguments. There’s
a need for the existence of a Jewish state.”
He went on to note further refences within the report to demographic
considerations on the part of the Israeli government, which he said
demonstrated that the claims had not been made “without foundation”; these
included the confiscation of farming land from Palestinians resident in Israel,
the use of checkpoints, and the allocation of state land.
4. The
complainant said that the inclusion of the photograph, showing a man holding up
a sign with the word ‘apartheid’ mis-spelt, also rendered the article
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it implied that Palestinian people could
not spell the term.
5. The
publication denied any breach of the Code. It said that the article was an
opinion piece, based on a prominent academic’s view of the HRW report, which
the publication was entitled to publish under the terms of Clause 1 (iv),
provided the academic’s opinion was distinguished from fact – which the
publication said it was. It said that the academic’s opinion was that the
claims advanced by the report’s authors regarding the “legitimate security
concerns” were without merit, and therefore were advanced “without foundation”,
where the academic contended that: there were “glaring methodological errors”
in the report; politicians were quoted selectively and without proper context
in the report; and none of the report’s authors were security experts who would
be in a position to examine whether the Israeli government did indeed have
“legitimate security justifications” for its “counter terror measures”.
6. The
publication also addressed the alleged inaccuracy regarding the photograph,
stating that it was chosen solely to illustrate the article and the complainant
did not consider the photograph was doctored. It, therefore, did not accept
that the image rendered the article inaccurate, misleading, or distorted in
breach of Clause 1.
7. The
complainant said that, while he could accept that perhaps the article had
intended to state that there was “no good foundation” to the author’s claims,
this was not the same as saying that there was “no foundation”; therefore, the
article was – in the complainant’s view – inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
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
8. The
Editors’ Code makes clear that the press is entitled to campaign, be partisan,
and express an opinion. However, there remains an obligation under the Clause 1
to take care over the accuracy of any claims of fact made within a comment
piece and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. A question for
the Committee was, therefore, whether the statement that “the [report] authors
claimed (without foundation) that counter-terror measures ‘were used ’to
advance demographic objectives’ without ‘legitimate security justifications’”
was presented as comment or fact.
9. The
Committee was mindful of the context of the article. It appeared in the Comment
section of the publication’s website, and was written in a polemical and
opinionated style. It was also clearly attributed to the academic, and the
article was accompanied by his brief biography. It was therefore clear that the
article itself was a comment piece, setting out the reaction of the academic to
the HRW report, rather than a news piece on the content of the report.
10. The alleged inaccuracy referred to claims made “without foundation”. The Committee considered that, in the context of a polemical comment piece, this phrase expressed the writer’s opinion about the adequacy of the evidence cited in the report to support its conclusions, rather than making a factual claim about the contents of the report. While the complainant considered that the report had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that counter terror measures were being used without legitimate security justifications, the commentator evidently rejected this. Furthermore, the disputed assertion was followed by additional criticism by the writer elaborating on the grounds for his view. Given the nature of the claim and the context in which it appeared, the Committee was satisfied that the disputed claim was identified as comment and clearly distinguished from fact. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the claim, and no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
11. The
photograph which accompanied the article was clearly intended for illustrative
purposes only; the complainant had not suggested that the photograph was
digitally altered, and neither the article nor the photograph caption made any
broader claims about the extent to which it was representative of the
Palestinian people. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
12. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
13. N/A
Date
complaint received: 30/04/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/09/2021
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.
Back to ruling listing