· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04762-15 Wadhams v The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. Professor Peter Wadhams complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Climate scientist fears
murder by hitman”, published in print and online on 25 July 2015.
2. The article was based on an interview with the
complainant, a professor of ocean physics, in which he expressed concern that
several scientists researching the impact of global warming on Arctic ice may
have been assassinated. It noted that the complainant had said that there were
only four people in Britain, including himself, who were “really leaders” on
ice thickness in the Arctic, and that three of these individuals had died in
2013. The article included the complainant’s position that “it seems to me to
be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental,
which may mean it’s been made to look accidental”. The complainant had also
suggested that he may have been targeted, as he had been involved in an
incident during the same period, in which another driver had attempted to force
his car off a motorway.
3. The complainant said that the article misrepresented
comments he had made to the journalist, and that in any case his conversation
with the reporter had not been intended for publication.
4. The complainant said he did not believe, as the
article suggested, that the three scientists who had died in 2013 had been
assassinated. Rather, he made clear to the reporter that any initial fears he
may have had in this regard had been rapidly dispelled. The complainant said
that he had believed that the purpose of the interview was to discuss the
question of ice thickness and extent in the Arctic. He objected to the fact
that the published article had not focused on this subject. The complainant
said that the journalist had indicated that he would contact the complainant
further prior to publication, and considered his failure to do so to be a
breach of Clause 2.
5. The complainant said that his conversation with the
journalist had been “off the record”, and that to publish the details raised a
breach of Clause 14.
6. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
provided a recording of the journalist’s conversation with the complainant, in
which the complainant made all the statements attributed to him in the article.
7. The newspaper denied that there had any
confidentiality agreement in place in relation to the interview. It said that
the complainant was practiced at dealing with the media and had spoken freely
and at length to the reporter, and that the complainant had introduced to the
conversation his concern that fellow scientists may have been assassinated. It
noted that at one point the complainant had requested that the conversation go
“off the record”, making clear that he was aware the conversation prior to that
point had been “on the record” and intended for publication. The
newspaper had not published material provided by the complainant during the
“off the record” part of the conversation. At the end of this section, the
journalist had told the complainant that he was “switching back to ‘on the
record’”. The newspaper regretted that the journalist had not telephoned the
complainant again prior to publication, as he had indicated he would do.
Nonetheless, the newspaper did not have a policy of offering pre-publication
copy approval to interviewees. Any such phone call would have been no more than
a courtesy call, or a request for the complainant’s response to further
questions in light of any new information that might have come to light from
other sources. The agreement to call the complainant again did not constitute a
promise of confidentiality.
8. The complainant said that he had not heard the
reporter say that the conversation was going back “on the record”.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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 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
10. The Committee had listened to a recording of the
complainant’s interview with the journalist, provided by the newspaper, in
which he made the statements attributed to him in the article. The article had
accurately reported his position as he had explained it to the journalist.
There was no breach of Clause 1.
11. The complainant objected to the fact that he had not
received further contact from the journalist prior to publication. Clause 2
does not include a requirement to seek pre-publication comment; rather, it
provides an opportunity to reply to inaccuracies. The Committee had not
established the existence of any inaccuracies. There was therefore no breach of
Clause 2.
12. The Committee noted that, of the approximately
30-minute “on the record” interview, about 20 minutes focused on the
complainant’s suspicions about the deaths of fellow scientists. During the
discussion of these concerns, the journalist had clarified a number of specific
points with the complainant, and had noted further details which he intended to
check independently, signalling that the material under discussion was likely
to form part of a published article. At one point in the interview, the
complainant expressed concern that some views he wished to raise were
potentially libellous, and requested that a part of the interview be conducted
“off the record”. Nothing from this section was published. At the close of this
section of the interview, the journalist signalled clearly that the
conversation would be going back “on the record”.
13. At the end of the interview, as the journalist was
saying goodbye, the complainant expressed doubt for the first time about the
publication of material relating to the deaths of the other scientists. The
journalist said that he would not publish this information without speaking to
the complainant again.
14. Clause 14 imposes a moral obligation on journalists
to protect the identity of sources who have provided information on a
confidential basis. In this instance, the complainant had not requested during
the interview that he be treated as a confidential source, nor had he made
reference to any such request in the course of his complaint. Rather, his
concern related to the question of whether information he had provided in the
course of an interview with a journalist was intended for publication. The
complainant had requested that one section of his interview, from which no
details were published, take place “off the record”. This demonstrated his
awareness that the rest of the conversation had taken place “on the record”,
and that any comments he had made might be published. While it was regrettable
that no further conversation had taken place as the journalist had suggested,
the agreement to speak further did not represent an undertaking by the
journalist not to publish material without the complainant’s consent. The
complainant’s expression of doubt at the close of the interview did not render
him a confidential source. There was no breach of Clause 14.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 26/07/2015
Date decision issued: 11/09/2015