Decision of the Complaints Committee – 10506-20 The Russian Direct Investment Fund,
Ekaterina Kvasova and Polina Petrova v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. The Russian Direct Investment Fund, Ekaterina Kvasova and
Polina Petrova complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and
subterfuge) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) in an article headlined “Client
offered me prostitutes at Davos party, says consultant” published 24 March
2020.
2. The article also appeared as two online articles
headlined “Client offered me prostitutes at Davos party, says consultant” and “Davos
investigation: champagne flowed and music played as women greeted guests”
published on 23 and 24 March respectively.
3. The print article reported on concerns about sexual
harassment and sexism at events taking place over the week of the World
Economic Forum (WEF) held at Davos. The
article led with allegations – unconnected to the Russian Direct Investment
Fund (RDIF) or its event – regarding the presence of “prostitutes” at Davos,
with the assertion that “at least 100 sex workers travel to Davos” during the
week of the WEF. It referenced “the prevalence of sex workers” at the evening
events which took place alongside the formal conference and also mentioned one
such event in 2019, again unrelated to the RDIF, where a guest alleged that he
had been “offered…prostitutes”. It then proceeded to discuss an evening event
held during the week of the 2020 WEF which had been hosted by the RDIF, the
Russian sovereign wealth fund, on 21 January 2020. The article reported that
“Guests arriving at the [event] were greeted […] by eight beautiful young
women” and that “[s]everal people got the impression that they were sex
workers”. It went on to report that when “[a]sked by an undercover reporter how
the women had behaved towards guests, [an anonymous] staff member replied: ‘Oh
very friendly, trust me.’ ‘How friendly?,’ the reporter asked. ‘They would do
something for you, definitely,’ he said”. According to the article, “[t]wo
other members of staff said that they also thought the women were offering
sexual services in exchange for money. One […] claimed that she witnessed a
female party organiser directing some of the hostesses to leave with certain
men. Asked how she knew whether the women were offering sexual services, she
said: ‘They don’t tell you who they are, but you understand.’” A third member
of staff also “claimed that some of the women left in the company of men”.
4. The article also reported that “Ekaterina Kvasova, head
of corporate marketing at RDIF […] recruited the hostesses” and that when
“[a]sked about the selection criteria [by an undercover reporter, she]
admitted: ‘We were looking only for looks and only for ambience, nothing
else’”. The article reported that she “also told the undercover reporter that
the hostesses were not escorts. ‘Frankly speaking some of them were actually
students from quite a reputable school speaking two or three languages,’ she
said. However, she admitted that she had felt it necessary to warn the women to
behave themselves, telling a reporter that she had told them they were there
for ‘ambience’ and that if any of them did anything more than that they would
have difficulty getting out of the country”. The article also noted that “[i]n
a statement, RDIF said that the women were hired to meet guests and provide
information about the programme for the event. This was necessary because there
were 450 attendees and only 20 employees at the event. They ‘strenuously denied
that any of the women were escorts or that they had been directed to leave with
men’”. That the RDIF had “strenuously denied [that the hostesses] were offering
sexual services” was also repeated elsewhere in the article.
5. The online articles contained the same information but
appeared as two distinct articles. The first -“Client offered me prostitutes at
Davos party, says consultant”- focused on concerns about sexual harassment and
sexism at events taking place over the week of the World Economic Forum (WEF)
at Davos and allegations – unconnected to the RDIF or its event – regarding the
presence of “prostitutes” at Davos. It did briefly mention the RDIF’s 2020
event, stating that it had “held a nightcap event for investors [at which
e]ight women had been flown over from Moscow to work as hostesses”. It noted
that “the atmosphere at the event was such that several people there got the
impression that they were sex workers”. The second online article – “Davos
investigation: champagne flowed and music played as women greeted guests” –
discussed the RDIF’s 2020 event in more detail and included the comments and
impressions of the anonymous staff members which had been included in the print
article.
6. The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. They said that the number of quotes from anonymous staff
members and sources included in the article gave the impression that the RDIF
had invited sex workers to its event whom it directed to provide sexual
services to specific male guests, which it said was false. In support of its
position, it provided witnesses statements from two of the eight externally
recruited hostesses, a member of staff at the hotel where the event had taken
place, and the father of a pianist who had performed at the event, who had also
been in attendance. The RDIF also provided a letter from the hotel at which the
hostesses had been staying confirming that all eight had returned to the hotel
at 3am and had spent the night there. It also provided a written brief sent to
the hostesses by the event organiser prior to the event. Whilst the complainants
did not dispute that some anonymous event staff members had made the comments
attributed to them in the article, they considered that the views they had
expressed were neither genuinely held nor reliable. Further, the complainants
also said the article was misleading as to what Ms Kvasova had told the
undercover reporter in the two phone calls. They denied that Ms Kvasova had
said that the RDIF was “looking only for looks and only for ambience” when
recruiting the women. They also disputed the claim that she had told the
undercover reporter that “she had told them [the hostesses] they were there for
‘ambience’ and that if any of them did anything more than that they would have
difficulty getting out of the country”. Ms Kvasova accepted that she told the
undercover reporter that, hypothetically, sex work could have been unlawful and
get the hostesses in trouble with the local authorities. Following the
production of an audio recording of the first phone call taken by the
publication, Ms Kvasova accepted that she had in fact told the reporter that
the RDIF was “looking only for looks and only for ambience” when recruiting the
women. However, she said that the word “ambience” was adopted by her after it
had first been used by the undercover journalist in a way which implied it
meant the opposite of escort, and that therefore her words had been reported
out of context. Finally, the complainants said they were denied a fair
opportunity to reply as the RDIF’s statements were only partially published and
that there had been a breach of the Code because the publication failed to
refrain from publishing the article after being told that it was inaccurate.
7. The complainants also said that the article had breached
Clause 10 as the undercover journalist had employed subterfuge when speaking to
Ms Kvasova in the two phone calls. Finally, they argued that the article was
discriminatory towards the RDIF, Ms Kvasova and Ms Petrova in breach of Clause
12. They considered that the allegations that the RDIF employed sex workers
constituted a pejorative reference to sex within the meaning of the Clause and
stressed that the article did not make any distinction between the external
event staff and the two permanent female RDIF employees who were present – Ms
Kvasova and Ms Petrova, thereby entitling them to make a complaint.
8. The publication said that in November 2019, four months
prior to the publication of the article, the publication had agreed to
undertake a joint investigation with the producers of a TV programme into
allegations of sexual harassment and sex work at events which took place during
the World Economic Forum at Davos. According to the newspaper, two days after
the RDIF’s event in January 2020, it received information from a source
connected to a guest at the RDIF party who described a sexually inappropriate
atmosphere at the event. Two journalists from the publication then attended an
unconnected event at the same hotel where the RDIF event had taken place, in
order to gather further information as they considered that staff members might
also have been present at the RDIF’s party two days prior. They attended the
event under their own identifies but spoke to guests and members of staff whilst posing as employees
of a private family office interested in making investments, although they said
that this rarely came up in conversation. Some of the members of staff they
spoke to alleged, among other things, that the hostesses at the RDIF party may
have been offering sexual services and been instructed to do so. The
publication said that these conversations were recorded by hidden camera and in
notes taken on a journalist’s phone and that all quotes used in the article had
been filmed. Following deliberations at editorial level, it was decided that Ms
Kvasova, head of corporate marketing at RDIF, should be approached, and a phone
call took place between an undercover journalist and Ms Kvasova on 27 February
2020, after the journalist had obtained her contact details from the hotel at
which the RDIF’s event had taken place. The undercover journalist made this approach
under the pretext of being involved in the organisation of a real estate event
and wanting to find out more about how RDIF had organised its event. After the
first phone call, the publication decided that the undercover journalist should
make a second phone call to seek further information regarding the claims that
the hostesses may have been acting as sex workers. The second call with Ms
Kvasova took place on 6 March 2020.
9. The publication argued that under Regulation 8(a) of
IPSO’s Regulations, standing to bring complaints under Clause 10 and Clause 12
is limited to natural persons who have been directly affected by the alleged
breach. The publication argued that the RDIF, as a Russian government body, did
not have standing to bring complaints under these Clauses.
10. In any event, the publication did not accept it had
breached the Code. It emphasised that it did not adopt as fact the allegations
made by anonymous sources and stressed that the article had made clear these
were the comments and impressions of third parties. It also stressed that it
had included the RDIF’s denials in its article, as well as the comments made by
Ms Kvasova’s to the undercover journalist that the hostesses had not engaged in
sex work.
11. In relation to Clause 10, the publication emphasised
that the issues covered by the investigation and article, around the treatment
of women at events taking place over the week of the World Economic Forum, were
of significant public interest. It considered that it had received credible
claims from sources at the hotel at which the RDIF event had taken place before
making the approach to Ms Kvasova. Further, it said given the sensitive nature
of sex work, it had reasonably considered that it would be impossible to
explore RDIF’s motivations for hiring the hostesses, nor the truth of the
allegations made by third parties, by approaching RDIF through official
channels. It argued that the level of subterfuge used was proportionate to the
public interest and that the decision to make a clandestine approach was made
following extensive discussion at editorial level and with legal advisers.
Finally, it said there was a public interest in publishing the information it
had obtained: Ms Kvasova’s remarks reflected the attitude of RDIF towards women
and the inclusion of her denial that the women had offered sexual services was
integral to the accuracy of the story.
12. In relation to
Clause 12, the publication stated that Ms Petrova was not identified in the
article and that there was no reference to her sex within the meaning of Clause
12. It also stressed that Ms Kvasova was identified in the article as the “head
of corporate marketing at RDIF” who “recruited the hostesses”. She was not
therefore referred to as one of the hostesses whom sources had commented had
appeared to be prepared to engage in sex work and the article could not be
discriminatory towards her in the way the complainants had argued.
13. In response, with
regards to Clause 10, the complainants accepted that gender equality, sexism
and the treatment of women at events taking place during the week of the World
Economic Forum were issues of significant public interest. However, they argued
that the article did not deal with these issues of public interest and stressed
that there was no public interest in publishing the information obtained
through the clandestine approach.
14. During the
referral period, the publication offered to make additions to the two online
articles to reflect the denials contained in the witness statements provided
after publication by two of the hostesses at the event.
15. The complainants
did not accept this offer as they considered a correction to be the appropriate
remedy.
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 correction, 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.
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.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
*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.
Relevant Regulations
Regulation 8
The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider
complaints: (a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected
by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code; or (b) where an alleged breach of
the Editors' Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in
the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected
by the alleged breach; or (c) from a third party seeking to correct a
significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third party
complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into
account. The Regulator may reject without further investigation complaints
which show no prima facie breach of the Editors' Code and/or are without
justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of opinion or to lobby)
and/or vexatious and/or disproportionate.
Findings of the Committee
16. The article reported on concerns about sexual harassment and sexism at events over the week of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos. It featured allegations – unconnected to the RDIF or its event –regarding the presence of “prostitutes” at Davos, and the assertion that “at least 100 sex workers travel to Davos” during the WEF. The detailed account of the RDIF party had, therefore, been included in an article which discussed the prevalence of sex workers at Davos, and the Committee considered the complaint with this in mind.
17. The Committee noted that many of the reported comments
concerning the alleged conduct of the women at the RDIF event were clearly
presented as subjective impressions and were not reported as unequivocal
statements of fact. For example, the article reported that two members of staff
at the hotel at which the event was held “thought” the women may have been
offering sexual services and that they “underst[ood]” this to be the case. The article also reported that several people
“got the impression” that the women were sex workers. The article also included
observations made by members of staff, which were clearly presented as such,
that the women had appeared to be “very friendly” towards guests and that some
of the women had left “in the company of men”. These reported impressions were
balanced with the inclusion of the denial of the RDIF that the women were
offering sexual services, which was repeated on a number of occasions
throughout the article, and the denial of Ms Kvasova given during her
conversations with the undercover journalist. While the Committee understood
the complainants’ concerns, on balance it was satisfied that the presentation
of the subjective impressions of third parties who had attended the event,
which were clearly identified as such, coupled with the inclusion of the
denials both from RDIF and Ms Kvasova, were sufficient to meet the requirements
of Clause 1 (i); the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information. Given the manner in which the impressions
of the third parties had been presented in the article, and that the article
had not reported these as fact, there was no significant inaccuracy which
required correction under Clause 1(ii).
18. The complainants first said that it was misleading to
report that Ms Kvasova had admitted to the undercover reporter that the RDIF
was “looking only for looks and only for ambience, nothing else” when
recruiting the hostesses. It was later accepted that Ms Kvasova had said these
words, as a recording of the phone call had been made, the authenticity of
which was not in dispute. The complainant said, however, that the word
“ambiance” had been used by Ms Kvasova because it had first been used by the
undercover journalist. Bearing this in
mind, the Committee considered whether the way in which the quote had been
included in the article was misleading such as to give rise to a breach of
Clause 1. Newspapers are generally free to report the comments of individuals
where they do so accurately and clearly attribute the comments to the person
who made them. Having listened to the recording, the Committee was satisfied
that Ms Kvasova’s comments had not been reported out of context; they appeared
in a separate paragraph in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
19. The complainants
had also said it was inaccurate to report that Ms Kvasova told the undercover
reporter that “she had told them [the hostesses] they were there for ‘ambience’
and that if any of them did anything more than that they would have difficulty
getting out of the country”. The Committee noted that it did not have a
recording of the phone call in which these remarks were allegedly made, but
that it did have a reporter’s note of the conversation and that the recording
of the second phone call demonstrated that Ms Kvasova had said that the women
were recruited to provide “ambience”. Given that Ms Kvasova had referred to
“ambiance” as the reason the women were at the event in the second phone call
and that the reporter’s notes evidenced that she had also said this in the
first phone call, the Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1 on this
point. Whether or not she had relayed
this information to the women themselves, as reported, was not a significant
detail within the context of the article. With regards to the report that Ms
Kvasova had told the reporter that she said “if any of them did anything more
than that they would have difficulty getting out of the country”, the article
did not report that this was what Ms Kvasova had actually told the hostesses;
only that she had told the undercover reporter that she had said this. It was
accepted that Ms Kvasova had said to the reporter that, hypothetically,
behaviour such as sex work could lead to trouble with the authorities and legal
difficulties. As such, to report that Ms Kvasova had said to the reporter that
she had told the women engaging in such activities would have “difficulty
getting out of the country” was not significantly misleading as to Ms Kvasova’s
views. In light of this and the record of Ms Kvasova’s comments in the
reporter’s notes, there was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the reporting
of these remarks.
20. The Committee
noted the publication’s argument that Regulation 8(a) meant that the RDIF did
not have standing to bring a complaint under Clause 10 and Clause 12. However,
the publication accepted that the clandestine approach was made to the RDIF to
explore the RDIF’s motivations for using sex workers, if this claim was true.
The individual who was subject to the clandestine approach, Ms Kvasova, was
acting in her professional capacity as a member of staff of the RDIF. For these
reasons, the RDIF was directly affected by the alleged breach of Clause 10 and
had standing to complain. In relation to Clause 12, the complainants’ concerns
related to allegedly pejorative references to the protected characteristics of
individuals. This part of the complaint only related to Ms Kvasova and Ms
Petrova. The RDIF, as a body, did not have standing under Clause 12.
21. It was not in
dispute that the undercover journalist had engaged in misrepresentation within
the meaning of Clause 10 in his two phone calls to Ms Kvasova. The issue for
the Committee was whether this misrepresentation, and publishing the
information uncovered through it, was justified in, and proportionate to, the
public interest.
22. How women are
treated at events during the week of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
including the availability of sex workers, allegations of sexual harassment and
sexist attitudes towards women, are issues of undeniable public interest. The
two undercover approaches to Ms Kvasova, about the impressions of third parties
that sex workers may have been in attendance at the RDIF event, were part of an
investigation that related to these matters of public interest. The two
approaches were made only after concerns had been raised by a number of sources
who had attended the RDIF’s event and were made in order to investigate the
position. It was reasonable to expect that an open approach to the RDIF would
not have been successful in obtaining information which might corroborate the
comments made by the third party sources, given that hiring sex workers would
be controversial. The Committee noted that the undercover approaches had not
uncovered any evidence that women at the RFID party were sex workers.
Nevertheless, including the information gained from these approaches in the
article was reasonably part of the efforts to take care over the accuracy of
the story, and showed that Ms Kvasova’s unofficial remarks to an undercover
journalist tallied with the RDIF’s ‘on the record’ denial of the allegations.
Further, the undercover approaches had revealed information about the role of
and views towards women who had been engaged to appear at an event taking place
during the week of the WEF, namely the admission that the women had been hired
because of their appearance. This information, which was included in the
published article, did relate to the wider issues of public interest around the
treatment of women at Davos. For these reasons, the actions taken by the
undercover reporter, and the decision to publish the information he gathered,
was justified in the public interest. There was no breach of Clause 10.
23. The complainants had said that the article discriminated
against the two permanent female RDIF employees at the event: Ms Kvasova and Ms
Petrova. Ms Petrova was not identified within the article and there was no
reference, pejorative or otherwise, to Ms Petrova’s sex in the article. Ms
Kvasova was identified as the “head of corporate marketing” at the RDIF and it
was reported that she had “recruited the hostesses” in respect of whom the
third parties had made the reported comments: she was not the subject of the
comments herself. The reference that the complainants had said was
discriminatory, namely the comments that the women may have been prepared to
engage in sex work, did not therefore apply to Ms Kvasova. There was no breach
of Clause 12 on these points.
Conclusion
24. The complaint was
not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
25. N/A
Date complaint received: 19/06/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/08/2021
Back to ruling listingThe 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.
