Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11269-22 The Alba Party v The Times Scotland
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
Alba Party complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Times Scotland breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Bigoted Minority”, published on 18th August 2022.
2. The article
reported on a protest held outside Perth Concert Hall during hustings for the
leadership contest of the Conservative and Unionist Party two days prior.
3. The
article was an editorial, with the sub-heading stating: “Sturgeon must do more
to distance her party from extremists”. The text of the article went on to
describe the demonstration by “nationalist agitators” as a “reminder that no
nationalist movement [is] free from bigotry”. It reported that during the
demonstration “eggs were thrown”; a young Conversative activist had
subsequently said that she had been called a “Tory whore”; and the “mob”
suggested that the Scottish Editor of the BBC was a “traitor”. It then went on
to describe the scenes in Perth as an “advertisement of nationalist excess and
a warning” adding that the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) “espouses a civil
nationalism; it must forever be mindful of the need to keep it that way”. The
article stated that “[n]ot all of those picketing the husting were SNP
supporters. A fair proportion of them appeared to be followers of Salmond’s
Alba party and other fringe movements.” It then said: “But the vast majority of
independence supporters remain loyal to Nicola Sturgeon, and the SNP still
dominates the broader nationalist movement.”
4. The
article also appeared online under the headline “The Times view on nationalist
protests: Bigoted Minority”. The text of the online article was substantially
the same as the print version.
5. The
complainant said that the publication had breached Clause 1 as it inaccurately
reported that “a fair proportion” of those protesting were “followers” of the
Alba Party. It said that the party did not organise a presence at the protest,
nor did any Alba banners appear at the demonstration. It said that, as a
result, the publication had published an unsubstantiated and unverified claim
that incorrectly associated the extreme behaviour reported at the protest, and
by extension bigotry, with the Alba Party.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. While the publication
was unable to provide a precise figure as to the number of Alba Party
“followers” at the protest, it said its assessment of the proportion of those
in attendance that supported the party was based on videos, photographs, and
comments posted on social media. The publication provided a number of examples
in order to demonstrate this, including an image of an individual at the
protest wearing an Alba Party badge and social media posts by individuals in
attendance who were either known to be connected to the party or had publicly
described themselves as members. Further, the publication said that its
description of a “fair proportion” was qualified by the next sentence of the
article; its description was intended to convey the sense of a small minority,
but one substantial enough to be heard.
7. Notwithstanding
this – on 18th August, upon receipt of a direct complaint from the Alba Party,
and in a gesture of goodwill – the publication amended the online article to
remove the word “fair”, so that the article instead read that “a proportion of
[demonstrators] appeared to be followers of Salmond’s Alba party and other
fringe movements”, and published the following footnote clarification:
“This
article was amended on Aug 18. We had overstated the number of Alba supports
who took part in the demonstration outside the Conservative hustings in Perth
on Tuesday evening.
8. The
publication also published the following clarification in print, in its
established Corrections & Clarifications column, on 20th August:
Our
leading article “Bigoted Minority” (Comment, Aug 18) overstated the number of
Alba supporters who took part in the demonstration outside the Conservative
hustings in Perth on Tuesday evening.
9. The
complainant, however, did not consider that the steps taken by the publication
were sufficient to address its concerns; the wording did not correct the
unsubstantiated claim made against the party, the items did not appear in
a sufficiently prominent location, and
they did not include an apology. It proposed the publication of the following
wording (in print and online) to resolve its complaint:
Yesterday
in ‘The Times View on nationalists protests: bigoted minority’ we stated that:
‘Not all of those picketing the hustings were SNP supporters. A fair proportion
of them appeared to be followers of Salmond’s Alba party and other fringe
movements.’ We are happy to clarify that we had no evidential basis to
substantiate the statement that a fair proportion of those protesting the
Conservative Leadership hustings were followers or supporters of Alba Party led
by Alex Salmond. We retract this statement and apologise to Alba Party.
10. This
proposal was not accepted by the publication and the matter was therefore
passed to the Complaints 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
11. The
Committee had regard to the context of the article; it was an editorial which
described the fragmentation in the Scottish nationalist movement, the presence
of what it saw as “fringe groups” and which argued that the Scottish First
Minister should distance herself from those groups. The Committee also noted
that the disputed claim as a whole stated, “Not all of those picketing the
hustings were SNP supporters. A fair proportion of them appeared to be
followers of Salmond’s Alba party and other fringe movements”. The Committee
therefore considered that the claim was not only about supporters of the Alba
party; it also related to those of the SNP as well as “other fringe movements”.
Taken in this context and where a “fair proportion” was clearly a subjective
measure, the Committee considered that the claim only suggested that there had
been some, rather than a large number of, Alba party supporters present at the
protest. This assessment had been based upon publicly available videos,
photographs, and posts sourced from social media, which sufficiently
demonstrated that a number of individuals who had taken part in the picketing
“appeared” to be affiliated in some way to, or were supportive of, the Alba
Party. In these circumstances, it was not incumbent on the publication to
contact the complainant for comment prior to publication. There was no breach
of Clause 1.
12. The
complainant was also concerned that the article associated the behaviour at the
hustings with the Alba party. However, the article made clear that it was
“nationalist agitators” in general who were demonstrating; none of the three
examples of the “extreme” behaviour cited by the publication were ascribed to
members of the Alba Party. Nor did it suggest in any way that the party itself
was responsible for, or promoted, the unrest. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point, but the Committee welcomed the steps taken by the publication to
resolve the matter.
Conclusion(s)
13. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. N/A
Date
complaint received: 19/08/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/10/22
Back to ruling listing