Decision of the Complaints Committee – 08251-19 Bates v
The Scotsman
Summary of Complaint
1. Damian Bates complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Scotsman breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Trumps ‘frustrated’ by foreign projects ban” published
on 26 October 2019.
2. The article reported on a meeting hosted at an
evangelical church in Glasgow, in which the executive vice president of Trump
International and her husband –who researched a book about President Trump–
addressed approximately 120 people. It gave details of the speeches made by
these two individuals, including their views on the President Donald Trump and
his business dealings in Scotland. It reported that the husband of the
executive vice president “lashed out” at media coverage of the Trump
administration, criticised the BBC and urged people to “tune in to RT, the
Russian government-funded broadcaster”.
3. The article also appeared online on 25 October 2019 with
the headline “Trumps ‘frustrated’ at inability to pursue ‘foreign investment’
deals, says Trump Org executive”. This article was much longer than the print
counterpart and gave much more information about what was said at the event,
and the backgrounds of the executive vice president and her husband. For
example, it quoted the executive vice president in reference to a successful
planning application for new houses as saying that “If anyone wants to buy a
house at the Trump Estate…” and her husband as adding “Or stay at the hotel”.
Both the executive vice president and her husband went into details of their
involvement with Trump International; the man had co-authored a book with
President Trump and his wife described him as having been “sashaying in and out
of the White House, so he has more access to [President Trump] these days than
me”. The man also described a hotel owned by President Trump as “quality” and a
“great deal” for the US military personnel who used it.
4. The complainant, the man named in the article as the
husband of the executive vice president and as having researched a book about
President Trump, said that the actions of the reporter breached Clause 10. He
said that he was in attendance at the event and was unaware of the presence of
the reporter. Having established post-publication that the reporter had gained
access via a false email address and entered false name and audio recorded the
event, he said that there was no public interest in doing so, or in publishing
the remarks he made at the event. Furthermore, he said that he found this
insulting and distressing as having taken place in a church. He said that it
appeared that the reporter had taken this action without the knowledge of
senior editorial staff – he provided an email from the editorial director of
the publication, and six other titles, who said “I don’t know anything about this
one. Let me look into it”.
5. The complainant also said that the article was
inaccurate. He said that it was not the case that he “urged” attendees of the
event to watch RT. In fact, he recommended that people should seek different
sources of information and not to rely solely on one source – RT was one in a
list of news outlets he suggested. He said that the comment was light-hearted,
and not meant to be taken seriously. He said he did not say the quote
attributed to him encouraging attendees to stay at a Trump hotel; instead it was
said by a different speaker at the event.
6. The publication did not accept that there was any breach
of the Code. It accepted that Clause 10(ii) was engaged to a limited degree but
said that there was a sufficient public interest to justify the behaviour of
the reporter. It said that it was understood to be the first time that any
employee of the Trump Organisation had given a public address in Scotland since
Donald Trump was elected President, and it was considered necessary for the
reporter to attend and record proceedings in order to ensure that the event was
accurately reported. It said that the reporter was experienced in reporting on
Trump International Scotland’s activities, and as a result, had been blocked on
social media by the business, and had been told by the complainant that he had
“no interest in talking to [named reporter] for any future articles”. As such
it said that it was reasonable to assume that if the reporter had taken an open
approach, he would not have been granted admittance to the event.
7. The publication said that the reporter, who was highly
experienced, discussed his plans for attending the event and the public
interest considerations set out above with the news editor. It said that they
considered the public interest in reporting on the event, and how the means by
which the newspaper might be able to report on it would be proportionate to the
public interest obligations set out under the Editors’ Code. As set out above,
this included whether it was necessary for the reporter to attend the event at
all, and whether the information required could be gathered by any other means.
It also discussed whether any intrusion caused by the attendance of the
reporter at the event would be proportional to the public interest served.
Furthermore, it said that the news editor was one of the most senior employees
at the newspaper, and regularly acted as its duty editor. It noted that the
email provided by the complainant was from the editorial director, who had
responsibility for six newspaper titles and was not generally directly involved
in day-to-day editorial decision making. As such, the email from him which said
that he “didn’t know anything about this one” did not mean that there was no
senior editorial consideration given to the reporter’s actions prior to
publication – instead, this responsibility was delegated to senior editorial
staff. The event was ticketed but open to the general public; the journalist
used a false name to book the tickets, but the newspaper said that at the event
he was not challenged or took any steps to disguise his identity.
8. The publication did not accept that the article breached
Clause 1. It provided a transcript of the complainant speaking at the event, in
which he said “I’ll go to CNN or look at Fox, and I’ll step into Russia Today
territory, RT. You should always try and find a different take. Actually, if
you’ve got Sky, go and look at RT – oh my goodness, the difference is
incredible”. It said that therefore, it was clear that the complainant was
“urging” attendees to watch RT. It said that it was unclear from the reporter’s
recording of the event whether the complainant or another speaker had said to
the audience that they could “stay at the [Trump] hotel” – however, in light of
the complaint, it accepted the complainant’s position that he did not say this.
It did not accept that this was a significant inaccuracy requiring correction –
the quote was small and uncontentious, and did not contradict the complainant’s
support for Trump International Scotland.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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.
10. Clause 10* (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material
acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by
intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the
unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held
information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including
by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public
interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
11. *The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
4. Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
5. An exceptional public interest would need to be
demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under
16.
Findings of the Committee
12. The reporter had accessed the event in a journalistic
capacity for the purposes of writing an article. In doing so, he had obtained a
ticket using a false name and the attendees were under the impression that he
was a member of the public. As such, the terms of Clause 10(ii) were engaged.
The reporter had then reported comments made by the complainant at the event.
13. The Committee considered that the level of subterfuge or
misrepresentation a reporter may engage in falls on a sliding scale. In this
instance, there was a public interest in reporting on the event, and this
public interest and the proportionality of engaging in misrepresentation to
attend the event was discussed at senior editorial level with the news editor
before the reporter had attended: the complainant and other high-profile
speakers would be discussing their experience of working with the President of
the United States, Donald Trump, and his business dealings in Scotland. It was
reasonable for the reporter to have assumed that an open approach would not
have been successful; he was known to the complainant as having written
previously about Trump International and had been blocked by them on their
social media accounts. The complainant also named the journalist specifically
as someone he had “no interest in talking to”. In attending the event, the
reporter had engaged in a very low level of misrepresentation; he had used a
false email address and name to obtain a ticket to an event open to the general
public, which was open to the public and which promoted the complainant’s book.
He had not accessed any information that was not available to any member of the
public in attendance at the event. The action taken by the reporter was
proportionate to the public interest served by reporting on the event. There
was a public interest in publishing the comments made at the event, including
the comments made by the complainant, as set out in the article; they related
to the business dealings of President Trump and the activities of Trump International
in Scotland. For all of these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 10(ii).
14. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern
that the reporter had used a clandestine listening device, and whether the
terms of Clause 10(i) were engaged. The Committee was mindful of the
requirement of Clause 1(i) to take care over the accuracy of information which
is reported and recognised the benefit of creating an accurate, contemporaneous
record of events. In this instance, the Committee considered that the audio
recording had been made to serve as a contemporaneous record of what was said
at a public meeting of approximately 120 people. The audio recording equipment
was not being used as a covert recording device to obtain confidential
information. As such, the Committee considered that the reporter did not use a
clandestine listening device, and the terms of Clause 10(i) were not engaged.
15. It was apparent from the transcript of the event
provided by the publication that the complainant had encouraged attendees to
watch the news channel RT. Therefore, there was no failure to take care over
the accuracy of the article by reporting that he had “urged” people to do so,
and no significant inaccuracy requiring correction. The reporter had recorded the
event, and in reporting this recording, had attributed a quote to the
complainant which said attendees could “stay at the [Trump] hotel”. Although
the publication accepted the complainant’s position that another speaker at the
event said these words, the Committee did not find that attributing the quote
to the complainant constituted a significant inaccuracy – the complainant was
quoted elsewhere in the article praising a hotel owned by President Trump, and
so attributing the quote to the complainant was not significantly misleading as
his views on the matter. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
17. N/A
Independent Complaints Reviewer
Date complaint received: 26/10/2019
Date decision issued: 17/04/2020
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
