Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11145-22 Aithal v expressandstar.com
Summary
of Complaint
1. Vinod
Aithal complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
expressandstar.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice by publishing a letter headlined “LETTER: Everyone seems to be cashing
in on the myth”, published on 1st December 2021.
2. The
letter cited the reader’s opinion of climate change. The opening sentence of
the letter asked, “[s]urely other people […] have also had the foresight to see
the ‘climate change bandwagon’ for what it [was]”. The writer went on to
express concern that “world leaders, politicians and fanatics are all cashing
in on the myth, some make a living off the fear and lies”, with countries and
companies “using [natural] variations as an excuse to charge more for
hydrocarbon and energy”. The letter argued that the planet had been in constant
change for billions of years, and that the planet’s “orbit, sun sports,
geothermal activity, tectonic plates, the gravity of the moon, continental drift
and even our wobbly axis” had all contributed to this. It then said that since
the formation of Pangea, “the subsequent movement of continents, volcanoes,
several ice ages, (possibly even meteor strikes), ha[d[ seen the rise and total
extinction of many species”, adding that “[w]eather patterns, geothermal
activity and future meteor strike[s] are all outside human control”. It also
stated that “[b]y the time history proves it was all within the normal range of
change, this generation will be dead and following ones brainwashed to believe
that natural entropy is reversible, and it was all caused by man’s tiny
influence”. The letter then stated that
society “should accept that we cannot change these natural disasters, and Earth
has been through it all before and a great hand, be it God or Gaia, will
prevail over our minute influence”. The letter’s concluded with: “Let’s accept
and enjoy ourselves, (in moderation), as an extinction level event could happen
tomorrow and, like the next ice age, a tiny rise in average temperature or any
other cyclic change to this planet, there is nothing we can do about it”.
3. The
complainant said that the reader’s letter was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
He said it was inaccurate to report that climate change was a “myth” put
forward by businesses and governments for financial gain or a “natural”
phenomenon: he said anthropogenic climate change was indisputable. The
complainant denied the substance of the claims put forward by the letter, which
he argued constituted climate misinformation. He also expressed concern that no
counterargument had been presented which he considered gave the false
impression that the views published were the accepted mainstream.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
letter was clearly identifiable as a reader’s letter; and therefore clearly
distinguished as the reader’s personal comment and opinion, rather than a
factual news piece. The publication said it sought to publish a range of views
on current and contentious issues, including climate change; it offered its
readership a platform to defend, react to and to challenge ideas and
perspectives. Further, it said that it took care to verify all reader’s letters
before publication, and the letter under complaint did not include any
significant inaccuracies requiring correction.
5.
Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint, on 24th August, the
publication offered the complainant a right to reply via a letter to the
Editor, to be published both online and in print, in order to resolve his
complaint.
6. The
complainant provided wording that outlined his position. The publication did
not accept the complainant’s exact wording, and offered to publish an edited
version of the letter, but the parties were unable to agree on a precise form
of words. As such, the matter was passed to the Committee for adjudication.
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.
Letters pages in publications are an important manifestation of the right to
freedom of expression: they offer individuals the opportunity to respond to
claims made in publications, share their own viewpoints and dispute points
raised by other readers. The Committee emphasised that its role was to evaluate
the complaint under the Editors’ Code and not to attempt to reach a position on
matters best left to public debate.
8. In
this instance, the letter was clearly presented as the view of the reader, as
it was placed on the online letters page; the writer was not presented as
having any authority on the matter and was entitled to set out his position on
the topic. The Committee noted that the writer presented himself as a
contrarian and sceptic from the outset. He made clear that there was a
prevailing scientific view when he described the “climate change bandwagon”
with regard to which he was voicing a controversial and minority opposition;
asking in the opening line of the article whether “others” also had the
“foresight to see” past that general consensus on climate change. The
controversial status of the information and argument he subsequently put
forward was therefore clear to the publication’s readership.
9. The
writer’s central argument was that climate variations were cyclical while also
acknowledging that his own argument would require “history [to prove] it was
all within the normal range of change” which again made clear the limitations
of his position. For those reasons the
Committee considered that the claims about climate change were clearly
distinguished as being the author’s minority opinion and at odds with the
scientific consensus and inherently hard to prove. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
10.
Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the steps taken by the publication to
resolve the matter.
Conclusion(s)
11. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
12. N/A
Date
complaint received: 14/09/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/11/2022
Back to ruling listing