Decision of the Complaints Committee – 08417-19 Cooney et
al. v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Rosie Cooney, Amy Dickman, Dilys Roe, Paul Johnson and
Maxi Pia Louis complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Funding secret of scientists against hunt trophy ban”,
published on 25 October 2019.
2. The article reported that a letter to a science journal
signed by more than 100 scientists had claimed that trophy hunting encouraged
wild-life conservation but "what it failed to mention was that four of the
scientists who made the claims had financial links with hunting bodies".
The article reported that the letter was organised by a group primarily from
Oxford University's wildlife conservation research unit and the International
Union for Conservation of Nature, and argued that the UK government's proposal
to ban imports of hunting trophies would undermine efforts to protect
endangered animals. It went on to report that their connections to various
hunting bodies were later disclosed in an addendum published by the journal
which had originally published the letter and had "in effect admitted that
it was wrong" to have done so "without including their potential
conflicts of interest". The article reported the details of the links the
scientists had to the various bodies. It went on to include a quote from the
journal's editor-in-chief, who said that the journal was revising its policy
"to ensure that authors of letters also make readers aware of the
financial and advisory competing interests". The article featured a
photograph of one of the scientists with the caption "Amy Dickman signed a
letter opposing a trophy ban but did not say that her lion conservation project
in Tanzania has accepted funds from hunting groups".
3. The article also appeared in much the same format online
under the headline "Funding secrets of scientists against trophy hunt
ban".
4. The complainants, the authors of the original letter,
said that the article was inaccurate. They said that the article directly and
explicitly alleged that they had deliberately concealed their affiliations and
kept their funding sources secret; this was demonstrated by the article's
headline and the claim that the letter had omitted details. The complainants
said that the journal did not ask them to submit a competing interests
statement when they first published their letter and there was no opportunity
to do so or to declare any interests, as this was not the journal's policy at
the time and that, to their knowledge, the journal had never published a
statement of interests in its 139 years of publication. Nonetheless, they had
gladly complied with the journal's later request to provide a competing
interest statement. Regardless, the complainants emphasised that at no point
did they withhold or keep information, or was it secret; all the information
regarding their funding connections was already in the public domain through
their published reports and websites. Dr Dickman said that the article and
caption had directly accused her of having kept her affiliations secret and
that there was some way for her to disclose this information to the journal,
when there was not.
5. The complainants said that the article had inaccurately
reported the potentially competing interest of the organisation of which two of
the complainants, Drs Cooney and Roe are the past and present chair: The
International Union for Conservation of Nature Sustainable Use and Livelihoods
Specialist Group (IUCN SULI). They said that the article reported that IUCN
SULI received "'less than 5 per cent' of its funding from hunting
bodies" and that "the group was partly funded by the Russian Mountain
Hunters' Club". However, this was inaccurate as the addendum made clear
that that SULI received 0% core funding from hunting-related organisations and
less than 5% of project funding from hunting-related sources. They said the
declared project funding related to a single meeting co-convened by IUCN SULI,
which received part funding from hunting related organisations, but that this
was not money received directly by IUCN SULI and therefore it was inaccurate
and an exaggeration to claim that SULI was "partly funded by it". The
complainants said that the inaccuracy was exacerbated by virtue of this
information being made clear in the published addendum. Further, the article
had inaccurately reported that Drs Cooney and Roe were past and present chairs
of IUCN as a whole and not IUCN SULI, which is a subsidiary organisation.
6. The complainants said that the article's statement that
"four of the scientists who made the claims had financial links with
hunting bodies" had inaccurately exaggerated the competing interest of Drs
Cooney and Roe; they had never received any funding from hunting related
bodies. The only information qualifying that the funding related to a group or
project in which they were involved featured some eight paragraphs later in the
article. The complainants also said that in light of there being no links
between Drs Cooney and Roe and hunting groups, the aforementioned line also
represented a straightforward inaccuracy as it referenced four of the
scientists, when the financial links related to only three of the authors. This
was inaccurate in regards to the figure as well as to the substantive
allegation, and Dr Roe had made this clear to the newspaper prior to
publication.
7. The complainants also said that the article inaccurately
reported that "the journal has in effect admitted that it was wrong to
have published a letter from scientists without including their potential
conflicts of interest". They said this wrongly implied that the journal
had taken issue with publishing the complainants' letter rather than with their
letter policy in general; the journal had changed its position to align their
policy with that of other areas. Further, the journal changing their policy did
not amount to an admission that previous policy was wrong, and using the term
admission suggested culpability.
8. The publication denied any breach of the Code. Firstly,
it said that the article did not accuse or report that the authors kept their
interests secret; rather those interests were secret to any readers of the letter
who had not taken steps to investigate the authors' publicly available
disclosures. It emphasised that the basis of the article was to report a
significant change of policy by the journal as a result of receiving
complaints; it had not stated that the complainants should have declared their
interests or had refused to publish a competing interest statement.
Nevertheless, and regardless of the journal's previous policy, the publication
highlighted that such declarations are increasingly commonplace and that there
was presumably nothing stopping the complainants from declaring their
interests. The publication also emphasised that the article did not report that
any of the signatories directly received funding and made clear that the links
were with groups or projects with which they were closely involved.
9. The publication denied that it was misleading to report
that "the journal has in effect admitted that it was wrong to have
published a letter from scientists without including their potential conflicts
of interest". It said that the journal had changed its policy as a
response to complaints, and decided to extend to the writers of letters its
requirement that potential conflicts of interest be declared and therefore this
statement was an accurate summary of the events.
10. The publication denied that it was inaccurate to report
that four scientists had links to hunting groups and disputed the complainants'
position that the fourth scientist, Maxi Pia-Louis did not have funding links
to hunting groups. The publication said that although the fourth scientist's
name and the nature of the link were edited out of the article in error, she
was one of the four signatories of the letter who had later declared a
competing interest to the journal. The publication said the nature of the link
was included in the addendum and was intended to be referenced in the article
in the following terms: "the addendum says Maxi Pia Louis, a fourth lead
signatory, is affiliated with NASCO, a Namibian body with links to trophy
hunting companies".
11. The publication accepted that as a result of an error in
the editing process it had reported that Drs Cooney and Roe are the past and
present chair of IUCN, and not IUCN SULI. The publication also accepted that it
had mistakenly reported that IUCN SULI received less than 5% of its core
funding as opposed to less than five percent of its project funding from
hunting bodies. The publication published the following correction online and
in print on 26 October in its corrections and clarifications columns:
Because of an editing error in later editions of a story
about trophy hunting (News, Oct 25) we wrongly identified the organisation of
which Rosie Cooney and Dilys Roe are past and present chairwomen as “the
International Union for Nature Conservation”. The organisation, as was clear in
the first edition, is a group within the union. The story also included a quote
that this group receives “less than 5 per cent” of its funding from hunting
bodies. This figure in fact refers to project funding.
12. The publication said that the significance of the
distinction between core and project funding was a matter for the Committee but
noted that funding would cover both and as an everyday term, its meaning to
readers would be clear. The publication also said that the addendum published
by the journal made clear that SULI received funding for meetings involving
hunting groups and that its website suggested that meetings of the group were a
core part of its work. It also noted that the most recent entry in its list of
recent activities remained a meeting from September 2018 co-funded by hunting
groups.
13. The complainants said that the correction was inadequate
and that the wording needed to distinguish between core and project funding.
They said that core funding is the only funding that IUCN SULI receives itself
to spend on SULI activities, whereas project activities are invariably
partnership activities carried out in collaboration with other groups and may
not even be received directly by SULI and therefore had a completely different
status to funding provided directly to SULI for its work. The complainants
emphasised that the two strains of funding are separate for these reasons and
for accounting purposes.
14. The complainants also said that the publication's
position regarding Maxi Pia-Louis was inaccurate. They said that NASCO received
no funding from hunting bodies and that this had been made clear prior to
publication. NASCO also had no financial links to hunting bodies and any supposed
link as claimed by the publication was third-hand as NASCO provided support to
various NGOs and conservation groups, who then in turn had their own separate
arrangements with local hunting groups to gain income and manage their lands;
this did not constitute a financial link between NASCO and hunting groups and
certainly did not mean that it received funding.
Relevant Code Provisions
15. 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.
Findings of the Committee
16. The article had inaccurately reported that IUCN SULI
received less than 5 percent of its overall funding from hunting groups, when
it was accepted that this figure related specifically to funding for project
work. Where this information was publicly available via the published addendum,
and where the addendum made clear that IUCN SULI received no core funding from
hunting groups, not making this distinction clear in the article represented a
failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause
1(i). This was significant in the context of the article as it suggested that
SULI had stronger links to hunting groups than was actually the case. Further,
the publication had misreported the group of which Dr's Cooney and Roe are and
were chair, this was publicly available information and there was a failure to
take in breach of Clause 1(i). In the context of an article which reported on
alleged links between trophy hunting bodies and specific conservation groups,
suggesting they were chairs of an organisation as opposed to a sub-group within
that organisation represented a significant inaccuracy. A correction was
required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
17. The Committee then considered whether the published
correction was sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The correction
made clear that the funding received from hunting bodies related specifically
to project funding as opposed to overall funding. The Committee did not
consider that a further reference to core funding was required. The correction
also made clear that Drs Cooney and Roe were past and present chair of a
subsidiary group of IUCN and not IUCN itself. The Committee considered that the
published remedy corrected the inaccuracy and made the accurate position clear.
The correction was published the day after publication, this was sufficiently
prompt. Further, publication in the online and print corrections and
clarifications columns represented suitably prominent positions in which to
correct the inaccuracies. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
18. The complainants had signed the letter but had not
disclosed their links to various groups when doing so as reported. The article
did not report that they had personally and intentionally withheld information
or kept information secret and it was not in dispute that not including this
information had influenced a change of policy by the journal. In these
circumstances the Committee did not consider that there was a breach of Clause
1 on this point.
19. The article had explained the basis of the financial
links between Drs Cooney and Roe and trophy hunting groups: they had chaired a
group which received funding from hunting groups. Where it was not in dispute
that ICUN SULI had received project funding in some capacity from hunting
groups and where the basis of this link was explained there was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
20. The journal had published an addendum, the wording of
which made clear that the letter and subsequent complaints brought the issue of
conflicts of interest to its attention and had prompted it to take steps to
ensure further letters were not published without disclosing conflicting
interests. As such, it was not misleading to report that the journal had
"in effect" admitted it was wrong to publish the letter; this had
influenced policy. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
21. The article did not report that Maxi Pia Louis had
received funding or had links to hunting groups as these details were edited
out of the copy. However it was not
inaccurate to report that four of the signatories had links to hunting groups.
The Committee noted that the published addendum stated that Maxi Pia Louis had
links to NASCO, and although NASCO did not receive money from hunting groups,
there were financial links via a network of NGO's that it provided financial
support to, which in turn worked with hunting groups. The Committee
acknowledged the complaints' position that this could not be considered a link
but where there was a chain, albeit potentially diffuse and where this was
lodged as a competing interest in the addendum this was not significantly
misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial Action Required
23. The published correction put the correct position on
record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was
required.
Date complaint received: 31/10/19
Date complaint concluded: 24/04/20