Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10294-21 The Majority v The Herald
Summary
of Complaint
1.
The Majority complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “The Gaelophobic fringe of unionism is poisonous and ugly.
Action has to be taken”, published on 30 July 2021.
2.
The article was an opinion piece, written by a regular columnist for the
newspaper. It was referenced on the
front page of the newspaper, accompanied by a photograph of the columnist. The
article commented on the prejudice faced by Gaels and the Gaelic language in
Scotland, particularly online, noting how “Gaelic’s very existence – even as a
marginalised language and culture – seems to trigger those few who see the UK
as a single, homogenous nation rather than a diverse state”. The columnist said
that Police Scotland’s decision to renew its Gaelic plan “provoked the latest
outbursts against the language”, noting the Twitter account of one “British
nationalist blog last week encouraged its followers to respond to a police
consultation on Gaelic. Its advice: unionists should write ‘use English’
whenever asked how to provide services to Gaels.”
3.
The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the
headline “David Leask: How can unionism deal with its Gaelophobic fringe?”
4.
The complainant was the blog whose Twitter account was referenced and quoted in
the article. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 to describe it as a “British nationalist” blog. It was an
anti-Nationalist blog; it did not support nationalism of any kind and attracted
support from across the political spectrum. It said that the description used
incorrectly likened them to “extremist, anti-immigrant” groups. In addition,
the complainant said that the decision not to name it specifically as the
source of the tweet was done to prevent any right of reply – an opportunity it
believed it was entitled to.
5.
The newspaper did not accept any breach of the Editors’ Code. First, it said
that the article was an opinion piece, which clearly presented the columnist’s
personal view on the subject of language and nationalism. It said that the
columnist was entitled to characterise the blog as “British nationalist” and
had a sufficient basis to do so. It was
a term that was commonly used to describe those who believed that the UK was a
single, homogenous indivisible nation rather than a diverse, multi-national
state. In support of this position, the newspaper provided examples of the
activities of the blog and individuals closely associated with it. These
included: its support for George Galloway’s Alliance for Unity Party; campaigns
for the closure of pro-Scottish Independence newspaper titles; demands for
speakers of Gaelic – a minority language and symbol of the country’s distinct
identity – to speak English; and a column published on the blog which called for a ban on secession, the
proscription of any political party calling for independence, referred to
Scotland as a region but the UK as a country and which concluded the assertion
that “We are one country”. In addition, it said that political values and terms
were inherently subjective, and as such it rejected the complainant’s “narrow”
definition of British Nationalism which equated it with “far right nativism”,
noting that moderate, mainstream political parties could be described as
“British Nationalist”. For all of these reasons, the newspaper said it was not
inaccurate or misleading to characterise the complainant as a “British
nationalist” blog.
6.
In addition, the newspaper rejected the complainant’s assertion that the
columnist had not specifically named the group to avoid a right of reply.
Rather, he had chosen not to name the complainant because it had abused him on
social media, and he did not want to give it the “oxygen of publicity in that
context”. The newspaper maintained that the omitting the name of the blog did
not render the article inaccurate or misleading.
7.
Notwithstanding this, in an effort to resolve the matter, the publication said
that it would be happy to consider publishing a letter from the complainant
setting out its position and to amend the online version of the article to name
the organisation. The complainant, however, did not consider this offer
sufficient and requested a published apology and retraction of the online
article. This was rejected by the publication and the matter was passed to the
Complaints Committee.
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
8.
The description and characterisation of political philosophies is a subjective
assessment, rather than a verifiable fact. The Committee acknowledged that the
definitions of particular terms and concepts will vary and inevitably be a
matter of debate. Accuracy does not require that publications adopt the same
language used by the authors or exponents of that movement to identify
themselves or characterise their ideas. In this instance, the contested
description of the complainant had appeared in a comment piece and the
characterisation of the complainant as a “British Nationalist” blog was,
therefore, clearly presented as the columnist’s own assessment of its political
stance. The publication had been able to provide a clear basis for the
description of the complainant as a “British Nationalist” blog, including the
complainant’s stance that secession should be banned and political parties
persistently advocating for secession should be abolished. The Committee did
not, therefore, consider that there had been a failure to take care over this
characterisation, and there was no inaccuracy that required correction under
Clause 1(ii).
9.
The Committee next considered whether the general reference to the blog, rather
than by its name, amounted to an inaccuracy. In circumstances where there was
no dispute that the blog referenced in the article was indeed the complainant
and where there was no dispute that the article had accurately reported the
publicly available comments made by the complainant, the Committee did not
consider that the omission of the blog’s name represented a failure to take
care over accuracy or gave rise to any inaccuracy, noting that that there is no
specific requirement in the Code to identity all sources by name. There was no
breach of Clause 1 in regards to this.
Conclusion(s)
10.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 29/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/02/2022
Back to ruling listing