Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 04642-21 Robinson v walesonline.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Stan
Robinson, on behalf of Voice of Wales, complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that walesonline.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The full Senedd election
2021 result from Swansea East as Labour's Mike Hedges wins emphatically”,
published on 7 May 2021.
2. The
complainant was one of a number of individuals who raised concerns about the
article; he was selected as IPSO’s lead complainant for the purpose of
investigating the complaint.
3. The
online article reported on the result of the Senedd Cymru elections for Swansea
East. It reported that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) candidate
for the Welsh Assembly, Dan Morgan, won “just 567” of the votes, with his “team
of supporters, wearing Voice of Wales t-shirts, the far right group whose
YouTube page was taken down for allegedly breaching community standards, […]
the only people in the building not wearing face masks”.
4. The
complainant, one of the supporters present, said that it was inaccurate to
describe Voice of Wales as a “far right” group. He said that “far right” would
be understood to refer to authoritarian, extremist, and anti-democratic
politics, which he said did not reflect the values of the group. In addition,
he said the article was inaccurate to report that the group were “the only
people in the building not wearing face masks”; a broadcast production team had
been present, members of whom were not wearing face coverings. He said that
this created the misimpression that the UKIP candidate and Voice of Wales were
reckless lawbreakers, acting in contravention of government guidance during a
global public health emergency. He said that the article identified him and
“outed” his disability which had exempted him from wearing a face covering at
the event. He said that the publication of this information breached Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) and constituted harassment, in breach
of Clause 3 (Harassment), as it had led to abuse from the wider public.
5. The
complainant also expressed concern that the group had not been approached for
comment by the newspaper.
6. The
newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. First, it did not accept that it was
significantly inaccurate to describe Voice of Wales as a “far-right group.” The
publication said that political values lie on an inherently subjective spectrum
and that the term “far-right” was not explicitly defined. Nonetheless, it noted
that this particular term was commonly used to encompass those that followed a
narrative of a racial and/or cultural threat to a ‘native’ group and which
rejected the concepts of diversity and integration. In such circumstances, the
newspaper provided examples of the activities of Voice of Wales and the
individuals closely associated with it, which it said demonstrated that the
group could reasonably be defined as “far-right”. These included: previous
comments made by the group regarding the teaching of Black History month and
reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement; the complainant’s own comments on
the inclusion of prominent black figures in the windows of the Arts Council of
Wales building; the reference to and monitoring of the group by anti-fascist
organisation FarRightWatch; the removal of Voice of Wales’ channel from YouTube, which had included videos
featuring members of the Proud Boys, the
English Defence League and anti-Muslim Party for Britain. It also noted that
Voice of Wales had been described as “far right” by other media outlets.
7. Second,
the publication maintained that its reporter had not seen any other person at
the count without a mask.
Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint, in an effort to
resolve the complaint, the newspaper amended the online article to remove the
references tothe group as “far-right” and the absence of face covering among
the group, and published the following footnote clarification to record these
changes:
“A
previous version of this article stated as fact that the Voice of Wales group
is 'far-right', and that they were the only people in the building who were not
wearing masks. This article has been amended to make clear that, while VoW have
given a platform to far right groups on their YouTube channel, they are not a
far right group, and although the reporter did not see anyone else without a
mask, we have also been asked to clarify that they were not the only people in
the building who were not wearing masks. We are happy to clarify this.”
8. The
newspaper did not accept that the article identified the complainant and noted
that members of Voice of Wales had publicly disclosed on social media that they
did not wear mask coverings and were, in fact, exempt. It added that the terms of Clause 3 and
Clause 12 were not engaged, with the article making no reference to the
complainant’s disability, never mind in a pejorative or prejudicial way.
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 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home,
health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
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
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
article under complaint was a report of an election count at which the journalist
had been present. The complainant accepted that he and others associated with
Voice of Wales in attendance were not wearing masks, as was required under
Covid regulations then in force for all except those who were medically exempt
(a group which included the complainant, as he explained in his complaint to
IPSO). The question for the Committee was whether the publication had failed to
take care in reporting the claim that members of the group were the “only”
people in the building not wearing masks.
10. In
considering this, the Committee noted the important role that journalists have
as observers of events; playing the role of witness is a core part of what it
means to be a journalist. Reporting on events will often require the relaying
of impressions and interpretations of what the journalist observes, which may
on occasion be limited. This does not in itself amount to a failure to take
care over the accuracy of an article in breach of Clause 1(i).
11. The
newspaper said that its reporter had not seen anyone apart from the
complainants’ group not wearing masks. It did not appear to be in dispute that
the complainant and others associated with Voice of Wales were not wearing
masks and that others attending the event were masked, with the exception, the
complainant said, of members of a production team for a broadcaster covering
the event. In circumstances where it was accepted that nearly all of those in
attendance were masked, including apparently all of those who were attending
for the purpose of participating in the event, and taking into account the
nature of the claim, the Committee did not consider that the specific claim
that the complainant and his group were “the only people” not wearing face
masks, based on the reporter’s observation of the event, represented a failure
to take care over the accuracy of the article.
12.
Nonetheless, the publication had been made aware, via the complaint to IPSO,
that the complainant denied that this was the case. The publication had then
offered to publish the complainant’s position that others present were not
wearing masks. The newspaper had been unable to demonstrate that its reporter’s
account was correct, and the Committee considered that the offer of a
clarification was an appropriate response to the complaint. The wording of this
clarification noted the basis for the original claim while placing on record
the fact that it was disputed. This was published promptly and with sufficient
prominence to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).
13. The
placement of political parties on a spectrum is a subjective assessment:
individuals’ and publications’ views on where particular policies and parties
fall on such a spectrum will necessarily vary. However, the Editors’ Code
requires that care be taken over the accuracy of such characterisations. In this
instance, the newspaper had been able to provide sufficient evidence to support
its interpretation and characterisation of the group in these terms. This
included the positions adopted by the group on the issues of diversity and
integration; the comments made by its members; the group’s association with
individuals and groups generally understood to be considered “far right”; and
the removal of the groups channel from YouTube. In such circumstances, the
Committee did not consider that there had been a failure to take care over this
characterisation, and there was no inaccuracy that required correction under
Clause 1(ii).
14. The
complainant said that the newspaper had breached his privacy by identifying him
and revealing his disability, in breach of Clause 2. The Committee did not
agree that the complainant was identified: he was not named, nor any private
information revealed about him. The article made no reference to his
disability. As such, the article did not represent an intrusion into the
complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
15.
Furthermore, the Committee was clear that the article did not contain any
prejudicial, pejorative or irrelevant references to the complainant’s
disability. There was no breach Clause
12.
16. The
Committee noted that the complainant had raised concerns over harassment from
third-parties, which he considered to be a direct result of articles such as
the one under complaint. The terms of Clause 3 relate to the conduct of
journalists and not members of the public, and so the issues raised by the
complainant did not engage the terms of Clause 3.
Conclusions
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 07/05/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/10/2021
Back to ruling listing