· Decision of the Complaints Committee 05717-15 Elliott v The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. Christopher Elliott complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 2 (Opportunity for reply) in an article headlined “Our military should
stop passing the buck”, published on 3 September 2015. The article’s
subheadline was “’We were only following orders’ just won’t wash. Defence
chiefs must take their share of the blame for Iraq and Libya”.
2. The complainant was the author of a comment piece on
the relationship between politicians and military high command in the UK. This
complaint related the newspaper’s editing of the article prior to publication,
and the selection of a headline and subheadline. The complainant said that as a
result of the editing process, the article was a distortion of his views. He
said that the headline and subheadline chosen by the newspaper were not supported
by the text of the article, and misrepresented his position.
3. After the complainant had submitted his article, it
was subject to editing via correspondence with a member of the newspaper’s
staff. The complainant expressed his disagreement with some of the amendments
made, and made clear that he did not give his consent for publication. After
further correspondence, the complainant drafted a version of the article that
he approved for publication. The published article differed from this version, and
included some of the amendments the he had previously objected to.
4. The article the complainant originally submitted for
publication began by discussing the delays to the publication of Chilcot
inquiry, and referred to an explanation that had been put forward by Tom Bower
by stating that “one line of argument Bower presents is that the military
chiefs have batted criticism back to Sir John Chilcot, claiming that they were
simply following orders issued by their political masters”. The complainant had
referred to Mr Bower’s explanation as plausible, and stated that “if this is
so, it is simplistic and maybe disingenuous so far as it applied to the later
period [of the Iraq war]”. The published article included the sentences:
“Former commanders…were said to be furious when they saw
early drafts of Sir John’s report. Given the chance to respond to his
criticism, they have insisted that politicians should take the blame, not them.
If true, this is simplistic and disingenuous”.
The complainant said that he did not know whether it was
true that former commanders were “furious”; he said that the reference was
sensationalist, and objected to its inclusion in an article under his name.
5. The complainant raised additional concerns at the
inclusion of a reference to a book he had written; the addition of word “sadly”
to describe the claim that there were still problems in the machinery of the
high command; the replacement of “unwisely” with the word “notoriously” to
refer to comments made by the defence secretary in 2006; the substitution of
the phrase “having all the intelligence” with the phrase “knowing full well” in
the sentence: “it was [the defence secretary’s] military advisers, having all
the intelligence that [Helmand] was an ungoverned space…”. The complainant was
concerned that the article contained text which he had not approved.
6. In relation to the headline and subheadline, the
complainant said that prior to publication, had had made clear to the newspaper
that he was not seeking to argue that military commanders were trying to shift
the blame; rather, he was arguing that that the machinery of the high command
was still not working correctly and that military commanders should accept
their share of the blame. He had suggested the headline “Difficult
Decision to Go to War”.
7. The newspaper said that the article was not a
significantly misleading representation of the complainant’s views. The
published article did not suggest that it was the complainant’s position that
former commanders “were furious”; rather, it stated that “former commanders
were said to be furious”. This was a factual statement relating to The Sunday
Times article by Mr Bower, to which the complainant had referred in the opening
paragraph of one of the original drafts he had submitted. The newspaper said
that the article was not a misleading representation of the complainant’s
position. It denied that the other amendments to the article were significant,
or distorted the complainant’s argument. It noted that in the article
submitted, the complainant had stated that “the politicians have largely taken
the blame for all of this so far, but the military must accept their share
too”. It said that the headline and subheadline concisely summarised the
argument the complainant had made in the article he had approved for
publication.
8. The newspaper said that a number of changes were made
to the article which appeared in the second edition of the newspaper to bring
the text more closely in line with final version approved by the
complainant. In response to this complaint, the newspaper offered
to publish a clarification to the effect that the complainant was unhappy with
the final version of the article.
9. In relation to the changes made in the second edition,
the complainant said that the newspaper had not changed the reference to former
commanders being said to be “furious”, the use of the word “notoriously”, nor
the headline. In response to the newspaper’s offer of a clarification, the
complainant requested to have sight of the text that the newspaper would use.
10. The newspaper published the following clarification
on 10 September, before the complainant made this complaint to IPSO, on its
letters page:
Major General Christopher Elliott has asked us to clarify
that, as published, his article (Opinion, Sept 3) gave more weight than he had
intended to the reaction of former military commanders to the early drafts of
the Chilcot report. We apologise for a misunderstanding during the editing
process.
11. The complainant said that the clarification was
published without his consultation, and without notice to him. He was not
satisfied that the clarification corrected the alleged inaccuracies, and denied
that there had been a “misunderstanding” during the editing process. The
complainant said that he would consider the matter closed if the newspaper
published a letter from him which noted his concerns that the article contained
text he had not approved, and noting that the publication of the letter had
been agreed to by the newspaper in recognition that the proper process was not
followed.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. 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. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish
clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity for reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee
13. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern
that the newspaper had introduced into the published article words and phrases
that he had not approved. However, the Code does not create a requirement for
copy approval, and these changes were insignificant; they did not significantly
alter the tone of the article, or the arguments being made. The inclusion of
the reference to former commanders being “said to be furious” did not attribute
to the complainant an argument or opinion that he had not made in his approved
drafts. For this reason, the amendments to the body of the text did not
constitute a breach of Clause 1.
14. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that
there was a distinction between identifying a failure in the decision-making
process, and the military actively passing the blame to politicians. However,
the complainant had referred to politicians having “largely taken the blame for
[recent military decisions] so far, but the military must accept their share
too”. Furthermore, in an earlier approved draft of the article, he had referred
to Mr Bower’s explanation for the delay in the Chilcot inquiry as “plausible”,
and had noted his line of argument that “military chiefs have batted criticism
back to Sir John Chilcot, claiming that they were just following orders issued
by their political masters”. In these circumstances, the headline and
subheadline were not an inaccurate or misleading summary of the complainant’s
position. This aspect of the complaint did not raise a breach of Clause
1.
15. No inaccuracies had been established as to raise a
breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), and the terms of Clause 2 (Opportunity for
reply) were not engaged.
Conclusions
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 15/09/2015
Date decision issued: 03/11/2015