Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10211-21 The Tax Justice Network v The Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
Tax Justice Network complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Tax activists accused of wasting cash”, published on 27
August 2021.
2. The
article reported that two of the “founders” of the Tax Justice Network had
“quit”– with both the “chairman” and “a commentator on financial issues”
departing the organisation. The article went on to report that the commentator
“created the network’s Financial Secrecy Index in 2009”, and included several
quotes from both the chairman and the commentator criticising the organisation
on various grounds, such as the growth of the organisation’s staff and the pay
of its senior managers. The article ended with a statement from the Tax Justice
Network, saying it was “disappointed to see recent attempts by some of Tax
Justice Network’s 2003 founders to subvert our current strategy process” before
going on to state that the “behaviour” of the founders had “created a false
impression of our work”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form.
4. The
complainant said that the article contained a number of inaccuracies in breach
of Clause 1. It said that it was inaccurate to claim that either of the two men
quoted had “quit” the organisation. The financial commentator held no paid or
unpaid position with the network, had not been listed as a senior advisor of
the network since 2013, and had not spoken at the organisation’s annual
conference since 2017. The chairman had retired from his paid role as executive
director with the organisation in May 2021, as planned, and without raising any
concerns with the organisation, and then had resigned as chairman 3 months
later. It said that an accurate article
would have made clear that the chairman had previously retired from his paid
role in May, rather than conflating his retirement and later resignation as
chairman into one event, which it said gave the misleading impression that
concerns over funding were the motivation for his departure from the network.
5. The
complainant then said that a further inaccuracy arose from the article’s claim
that the financial commentator had “created the network’s Financial Secrecy
Index in 2009”. It said that the Index had emerged from “discussions among a
range of people [….] in 2007” and that the commentator was not present at these
talks, though it did note that the commentator was subsequently involved in
early editions of the Index.
6. In
addition, the complainant said that the article had breached Clause 1 by
including “inaccurate and misleading accusations” from the two men about the
network – in the words of headline – “wasting cash”. It said that the
publication had not distinguished the men’s claims from fact; had not provided
a balanced and fair picture of the network; and had not sought a response from
the network to the allegations. It also noted that the article omitted to
mention that the network’s financial accounts were publicly available, and that
it was “consistently well assessed in funder audits and evaluations”.
7. The
complainant said that it wished for a full correction and apology to be
published in print and online, to address the alleged inaccuracies and
apologise for any harm caused to the organisation.
8. The
publication said it did not accept that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1. It noted first that the article did not claim that the chairman or
commentator had resigned from paid roles, and that the use of the word “quit”
in the context of the article was a fair summary of what had happened: two of the
founders of the network had disowned the organisation. It provided the
resignation letters of both men, and further noted it had not claimed in the
article that the financial commentator had held any position with the
organisation, but merely that he had quit it. It considered this a fair summary
of his letter, in which he had said that he “resign[ed] from association with
the Tax Justice Network”.
9. The
publication then said that it did not appear to be in dispute that the
financial commentator was involved in the early editions of the Financial
Secrecy Index, noting that he was thanked on the complainant’s website as one
of those “who have contributed to the creation and construction of the index
over the years”. It also linked to a post on the financial commentator’s
website, in which he stated that he had “directed a project” for the
complainant and that the “output” of the project was the Financial Secrecy
Index.
10.
Turning to the complainant’s concerns that the article had breached Clause 1 by
including “inaccurate and misleading accusations” from the two men about the
network, it said that the statements which the complainant disputed were the
opinions of the two men and clearly distinguished as such. It noted also that
the article included the complainant’s statement on the issues raised by the
two men – thereby putting its position on the record. With this context, the
publication did not accept that the article was significantly inaccurate on
this point, or that it had not taken sufficient care. In addition, the
publication said that there was no general “right to reply”, where Clause 1
(iii) refers only to the fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies.
Where the publication did not accept that the article included any significant
inaccuracies, it did not consider the terms of Clause 1 (iii) to be engaged.
11. The
complainant said that, where the publication accepted that the financial
commentator had held no position with the organisation, it was clearly
inaccurate to report that he had “quit” the organisation. It further noted that
the publication had made no attempt to check the veracity of the claim, beyond
relying on the website of a “disaffected founder”. It also said that, while it
accepted that the financial commentator had a role in the early production
cycles of the Secrecy Index, it did not follow that he had created it.
12. While
the complainant accepted that the article had included excerpts from a
“somewhat relevant” statement it had published on the website, it said that the
statement was presented as if it was the organisation’s response to the
specific claims made by the men quoted in the article. It said this could not
be the case, as the statement was published two days before the ‘resignation’
of the financial commentator.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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
13. The
article explained the men’s association with the network, referring to them as
“founders”. In addition, one had been described
as a “chairman”, while the other was more generally referenced as a
“commentator on financial issues”.
14. It
was not in dispute that the chairman of the network had resigned from his role
as chairman. The Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate in
its description of the chairman having “quit” the organisation, where it was
not in dispute that he had held this role within the organisation, regardless
of whether it was paid or unpaid (and whether he had previously held a paid
role). There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
15. Turning
next to the question of whether reporting that “commentator on financial
issues” had “quit” the organisation, the Committee acknowledged that in
isolation, the term “quit” could be taken to imply that the financial
commentator held a formal role within the organisation. However, the article
explained his connection to the network as one of its founders. Where this was
the case, and it was not in dispute that he had a clear association with it
that spanned many years before “disowning” it in what he referred to as a
‘resignation’ letter, the Committee did not consider that the claim that he had
“quit” was inaccurate or required correction.
16. It
was not in dispute that the financial commentator had played a role in the
early production cycle of the Secrecy Index. Therefore, the Committee did not
consider reporting that the commentator had “created” the Index in the context
of an explanation of his close association with the network represented an
inaccuracy in need of correction, or that the publication had failed to take
care over the accuracy of the information; both the commentator’s website and
the complainant’s website stated that the commentator had contributed to the
creation of the index – with the commentator’s website referencing him
“directing” a project which led to the Index. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
17. The
publication was entitled to publish the criticisms of the two men, provided
that, in doing so, the terms of Clause 1 were not breached. The Committee noted
that the views of the men were clearly attributed to them, via the use of
quotations, and that the headline made clear that the views were “accusations”
rather than established fact. In addition, the statement from the complainant,
taken from its website, clearly rebutted the criticisms and made clear that it
considered that they had “create[ed] a false impression” of the organisation’s
work. Where the criticisms by the men were clearly presented as their opinion,
in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv), and the article recorded the
organisation’s broad denial of the claims, the Committee did not consider that
the article breached Clause 1 on this point.
18. The
complainant also raised concern about the reference in the headline to claims
that the network was “wasting cash”, noting that the network’s financial
accounts were publicly available, and that it was “consistently well assessed
in funder audits and evaluations”. The Committee noted that it considers
headlines in the context of the article as a whole. Neither the article as a
whole nor the attributed comments within it claimed any misconduct or
impropriety in relation to the organisation’s financial controls. Rather, the
criticism as reported in the article related to concerns over the strategic
direction of the organisation, including the decision to take on more staff. In
this case, omitting information about the network’s publicly available accounts
and audits did not make the article inaccurate or misleading; the article had
made clear that the organisation rejected the two men’s claims. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
19. Where
the Committee did not find that the article included any significant
inaccuracies, there was no requirement for the publication to give the
complainant the opportunity to reply. Therefore, no breach of Clause 1 arose
from the publication not seeking comment on the two men’s claims. In addition,
concerns that the article had not provided a balanced and fair picture of the
network did not engage the terms of Clause 1; it includes no requirement for
balance.
Conclusion(s)
20. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
21. N/A
Date
complaint received: 24/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/12/2021
Back to ruling listing