Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 04639-21 Alakirik v East Anglian Daily Times
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Bayram Alakirik complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
East Anglian Daily Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment),
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), and Clause 13 (Financial journalism)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Takeaway”, published
on 26th May 2021.
2. The
article reported on a local takeaway, Chick King, going into liquidation. It
stated that the restaurant “owed £17,745.19 but had nothing to pay its debts
with” and that “Station Chicken Limited, which runs Chick King, appointed
liquidators”. The article said that documents had been filed with Companies
House and provided a breakdown of outstanding debts. It also reported that “the
company's director [...] applied to close the company by having it struck off
the Companies Register”. The article described the restaurant as “One of Bury
St Edmunds' worst-rated takeaways” and explained that it “was rated as the
112th best of the 117 restaurants in the town according to Trip Advisor”.
3. The
article was also published online in substantially the same format under the
headline “Poorly rated Chick King takeaway goes into liquidation”, on 7th May
2021.
4. The
online article reported that the restaurant “ow[ed] nearly £18,000”.
5. The
complainant said that it was inaccurate to state that Chick King had gone into
liquidation and that it had outstanding debts. He was the owner of Chick King,
having bought it in February 2020, and it was a thriving takeaway business.
Station Chicken Limited did not own the takeaway and nor did the individual
named in the article as being the company’s director. The complainant also
denied that Chick King was one of the “worst-rated takeaways” in the area; he
said the restaurant had a five-star hygiene rating.
6. The
complainant also said the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) because it had caused the restaurant to receive
prank calls and customers mocking staff about the apparent closure. Finally, the
complainant said that the article breached Clause 13 (Financial Journalism)
because it had had a negative financial impact on his business.
7. The
publication accepted that the claim that the restaurant had gone into
liquidation was inaccurate. It said it had sourced the information about the
liquidation proceedings of Station Chicken Limited from the London Gazette. The
reporter had attempted to contact the liquidators but received no response, and
so assumed that the liquidation proceedings referred to the same business, but
which had changed its name to Chick King. Once alerted to this inaccuracy, the
publication had immediately contacted the complainant and the article was taken
down. The publication had worked with the complainant to write a new article
that was published less than a week after it had first become aware of the
issue. The print version of the article appeared on page 5 and was headlined,
“Takeaway going strong”, and was published on 27th May 2021. The online version
was headlined “Bury St Edmunds takeaway going from strength to strength under
new boss” and was published on 26th May 2021. The new article reported that “A
Bury St Edmunds takeaway is going from strength-to-strength after being taken
over by a new owner last year. Chick King, in Station Hill in the town, was
taken over by [the complainant] in February 2020”. Both the print and online
versions of the article included a corrective footnote and apology:
“In an
article published on May 7 we mistakenly said Chick King had gone into
liquidation. In fact, it was Station Chicken Ltd which went into liquidation.
Mr Alakirik now runs Chick King and we are sorry for any confusion our article
caused.”
8. The
publication did not accept that describing the restaurant as one of the “worst-rated
takeaways” in the area was inaccurate. Whilst the complainant had highlighted
the restaurant’s five-star hygiene rating, the publication had not been using
this metric in its characterisation of the restaurant. It said that the article
had made clear that this claim was based on its ranking on Tripadvisor and that
it was “rated as the 112th best of the 117 restaurants in the town”.
9. The
publication also did not accept that the article had breached Clauses 3, 4, and
13. It said it had not carried out any of the activities related to these
Clauses and so they were not engaged.
10. The
complainant did not accept the published article and correction as a resolution
to his complaint.
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.
Clause 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases
involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with
sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
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
11. The
publication had based its article on a notice published in the London Gazette
which reported the liquidation proceedings of Station Chicken Ltd, and
following failed attempts to contact the liquidators for comment, had proceeded
to publish the article on the incorrect assumption that Chick King was the same
company, but under a different name. The publication had failed to establish
that Chick King had been under new ownership for over a year and was a fully
operational business. This amounted to a
clear failure on the part of the publication to take sufficient care not to
publish inaccurate or misleading information and, therefore, the Committee
established a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code.
12. The
statement that a healthy, functioning business had ceased to operate and had
been put in liquidation and owed significant debts was clearly a highly
significant inaccuracy and therefore under Clause 1 (ii), the publication was
obliged to correct the inaccuracy, promptly and with due prominence. The
Committee therefore considered the corrective action undertaken by the
publication and assessed whether it fulfilled the obligations of Clause 1 (ii).
The publication had removed the original article and worked with the
complainant to write a new article that highlighted the successes of the
restaurant. This article was published online and in print. It also included a
statement, as a footnote to the new article, which identified the inaccuracy,
set out the correct position and apologised for the error. This action had been
undertaken and completed within a week of the publication being made aware of
the inaccuracy. The Committee concluded that this met the requirement of Clause
1(ii) for due promptness, and that an apology was appropriate given the nature
of the inaccuracy and the potential impact on the complainant and his business.
13. The
online article had appeared on the homepage of the website before moving down
the news queue to remain online in the news section while the print article had
appeared on page 5, two pages further forward than the original. While the
inaccuracy was highly significant, the Committee concluded that the corrective
action taken by the publication was sufficient to meet the requirements of
Clause 1 (ii) of the Code. There was, therefore, no further breach of Clause 1
of the Code.
14. The Committee considered whether it was inaccurate to describe the takeaway as one of the “worst-rated” in the area. Whilst the complainant had provided evidence of the five-star hygiene rating, the article had made clear that this claim was based upon the restaurant’s rating on Tripadvisor, which placed it as one of the least popular in the area. As such, the newspaper had provided sufficient basis to support its characterisation and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
15.
Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news,
including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the
story. The complainant’s concern related to nuisance calls from members of the
public rather than journalists. As such, this meant Clause 3 was not engaged.
16.
Similarly, Clause 4 requires that in cases involving personal grief or shock,
enquiries are made with sympathy and discretion, and that publication is
handled sensitively. Whilst the Committee did not doubt the difficulties
involved in running a business and the problems the article had caused, as it
did not report on issues involving the complainant’s grief or shock, the terms
of this Clause were not engaged.
17.
Clause 13 states that journalists should not use for their own, or another’s,
profit, financial information they receive in advance of its general
publication. The complainant’s concern did not relate to this and so it did not
engage the terms of the Clause.
Conclusions
18. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
19. The
published correction and second article put the correct position on record and
was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 10/05/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/11/2021