Decision of the Complaints Committee 05143-15 Lewis v
The Daily Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Ivan Lewis MP complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour grandees round on
‘anti-Semite’ Corbyn,” published on 15 August 2015.
2. The article reported that a number of prominent
members of the Labour Party had criticised leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
It said that the complainant, the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, had
accused Mr Corbyn of being an anti-Semite, and had attacked his “anti-Semitic
rhetoric”. It quoted the basis of this claim: the complainant’s view, expressed
in an article published elsewhere, that “Some of [Mr Corbyn’s] stated political
views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown poor
judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who
have engaged in…anti-Semitic rhetoric. It saddens me to have to say to some on
the left of British politics that anti-racism means zero tolerance of
anti-Semitism, no ifs, and no buts”.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate;
he had not accused Mr Corbyn of anti-Semitism. He considered that the newspaper
had misrepresented the article he had written for the other publication.
4. The newspaper did not accept that the article was an
inaccurate summary of the complainant’s comments. It noted that headlines
should be considered in the context of full articles, and in this case the piece
had included full quotations from the complainant’s article. It said that the
complainant was experienced at writing for public consumption and was aware of
the need to express himself unambiguously. It said that it was widely accepted
in modern western societies that to tolerate anti-Semitism was in itself a form
of anti-Semitism. It was not therefore unreasonable to understand the
complainant’s comments as indicating that Mr Corbyn had himself adopted an
anti-Semitic position by failing to criticise anti-Semitism in others.
Nonetheless, it offered to publish the following clarification on page 2, and
beneath the online article:
"An article of 15 August said that Ivan Lewis had
accused Jeremy Corbyn of being ‘anti-Semitic’. In fact, Mr Lewis said that Mr
Corbyn had “shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to
speak out against people who have engaged… in anti-Semitic rhetoric”. We are
happy to make this clear."
5. The complainant was not willing to accept the
newspaper’s offer because he regarded it as insufficiently prominent. It should
appear on the front page of the print edition and the home page of
Telegraph.co.uk.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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.
Findings of the Committee
7. The newspaper was entitled to take a view as to
meaning of the complainant’s remarks and the Committee did not seek to prevent
it from presenting its interpretation. However, the article was a news report
that stated prominently and without qualification that “Jeremy Corbyn was
accused of being an anti-Semite by [the complainant]”. The headline had also
referred to an accusation that Mr Corbyn was “anti-Semitic”, meaning the
complainant’s comments.
8. An express claim that Mr Corbyn was an anti-Semite would
have constituted an exceptionally strong attack by the complainant on Mr
Corbyn, with potential implications for both men; this was a highly significant
claim. In fact, the complainant had not made this criticism in terms, as the
article stated. The coverage was therefore significantly misleading. This
misleading impression was not remedied by the quotation of the remarks
elsewhere in the article.
9. Furthermore, the misleading impression was reinforced
by the article’s inaccurate claim that the complainant “attacked Mr Corbyn’s
‘anti-Semitic rhetoric’”; he had criticised Mr Corbyn’s failure to challenge
the anti-Semitic rhetoric of others. The newspaper had distorted his comment on
this issue.
10. On both points, the newspaper had failed to take care
not to publish inaccurate information and had breached Clause 1 of the Editors’
Code.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
12. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
13. The newspaper had offered to publish a clarification
on page 2, and beneath the online article. However, the wording offered did not
identify in full the original published inaccuracy. The newspaper should
therefore publish a correction which made clear that the complainant had not
directly accused Mr Corbyn of anti-Semitism and had not made reference to Mr
Corbyn’s “anti-Semitic rhetoric”. The correction should also note that it had
been published following a ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation. It should appear beneath the online article and on page 2 in
print. The print edition should also include a front page reference to the
correction, as the original article had appeared on page 1. The front page
reference should make clear the subject matter of the original article, and
direct readers to the page on which the correction could be found; it should be
agreed with IPSO in advance.
Date complaint received: 17/08/2015
Date decision issued: 28/09/2015