Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10754-21 Millar v Nation.Cymru
Summary
of Complaint
1. Darren
Millar complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Nation.Cymru breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Brexit-backing Tory MS reveals he has Irish citizenship”
published on 29 September 2021.
2. The
complainant was the Member of the Senedd and subject of the article.
3. The
article reported that the complainant had “revealed” he was an Irish citizen
during a debate in the Senedd. It included his full comments made to the house,
in which he stated that “obviously, I am a proud Irish citizen”. The newspaper
commented that despite backing Brexit, he had retained his own EU citizenship
by being an Irish citizen, and included a Tweet from another politician which
stated that he “hadn’t realised” the complainant was an EU citizen.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
he had not “revealed” that he was an Irish citizen in the Senedd, as he had
previously shared this information in the public domain. He supplied a number
of tweets posted from 2009 to 2021 and blog posts from 2013 and 2014 in which he
referred to his Irish citizenship, and noted his dual citizenship had been
recorded on his Wikipedia page since 2011 and that he had also previously
referred to it within the Senedd. The complainant said that the word “revealed”
was significant as it gave the impression he had kept his citizenship a secret
prior to the referendum to leave the EU. He also said that readers had assumed
from the article that he had gained his citizenship after the UK left the EU in
order to protect the benefits associated with EU citizenship when, in fact, he
had this citizenship from birth.
5. The
complainant contacted the newspaper directly after the publication of the
article, and asked them to publish the following quote:
I’m
surprised that my news of my Irish heritage came as a revelation to [named
politician] because I’ve referred to it many times in the Senedd over the past
14 years. We all know he loves the sound of his own voice but if he took the
time to listen to others from time to time he could be enlightened further. I
will make no apologies for being Irish. As the son of a working class Irish
immigrant, I am proud of my Irish heritage and citizenship; it’s an important
part of who I am. Like many Irish citizens living in the UK, and the majority
of voters in [named politician]’s constituency, I voted to leave the EU; [named
politician] needs to get over it
This
quote was included in full in a second article; however, the complainant said
that this did not resolve his complaint as the first article remained online
and uncorrected.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that whilst the word
“reveal” could mean disclosure a secret, this was not its sole meaning. It said
that the word reveal can simply mean to "make known". The newspaper
said that many people did not know the complainant was an Irish citizen –
including the editor of the newspaper – and it was made known, or “revealed”,
to these people when he spoke about his Irish citizenship during the recent
debate in the Senedd. It noted that the opposition politician, whose tweet was
used in the article, had been surprised by the complainant’s citizenship, which
suggested that it was not well known. The publication said, therefore, the use
of the word “reveal” in the first article was entirely contextual depending on
whether the reader was aware of his citizenship. The newspaper also noted that,
on a separate occasion, the complainant had also used the word “revealed” in
the Senedd to refer to information that would already have been known by some
people, which the newspaper said demonstrated that the word could be understood
this way.
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
7. It was
not contested that the complainant had previously made public his status as an
Irish citizen, and that some people would therefore be aware of his dual
citizenship. The question for the Committee was, therefore, whether it was
significantly misleading to use the word “revealed” when reporting on the
complainant’s reference to his Irish citizenship during the recent debate in
the Senedd.
8. The
Committee noted that the article focused on the complainant’s support for
Brexit whilst retaining citizenship to the EU himself. It accurately reported
what had been said in the Senedd, and apart from the contested word “revealed”,
had not contained any suggestion that the complainant had previously hidden his
Irish citizenship: indeed, it had quoted him as saying that “obviously” he was
a “proud Irish citizen”, which did not suggest he had sought to conceal the
fact. Nonetheless, it was evident that this information was not universally
known, as demonstrated by the inclusion of a tweet from a politician who said
he had not been aware of the complainant’s dual citizenship. The Committee
accepted the publication’s view that the term “revealed” does not have the sole
meaning of information being made public for the first time, and could simply
mean to inform, or make known, to those previously unaware of particular
information. In the context of the article the word “revealed” was not
misleading in the way suggested by the complainant and there was no breach of
Clause 1.
9. The
complainant had expressed concern that readers had understood from the article
that his Irish citizenship had been recently acquired in order to retain the
benefits of EU citizenship. The article made no suggestion that he had recently
obtained the citizenship; it referred to him having “retained” his Irish
citizenship despite his support for Brexit, implying that it predated the
Brexit debate. There was no breach of the Code on this point. The Committee,
however, welcomed the publication of the second article, including the quote from
the complainant.
Conclusion(s)
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11. N/A
Date
complaint received: 13/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/02/2022
Back to ruling listing