Resolution
Statement – 11453-22 Kusamotu v The Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Tunde
Kusamotu complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Nigeria banishes white models and British voices from
adverts”, published on 27 August 2022.
2. The
article reported that, “[a]s part of a ‘policy of developing local talent’”,
Nigeria‘s “advertising regulator has announced a ban on ‘foreign models and
voiceover artists’ from October”. It went on to report that “[t]he ban would
cover all non-Nigerians, affecting the western, white actors who have appeared
regularly on the country’s televisions”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “Nigeria becomes first country to ban white models in adverts”.
4. The
complainant said that both versions of the headline were inaccurate in breach
of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because Nigeria had not “banish[ed]” or “ban[ned]” white
models – as reported by the print and online headline’s respectively. Rather,
it had restricted the use of foreign models. He said that the article did not
support the headline, and that the latter unfairly depicted Nigeria and the
policy as discriminatory against white people. To support his position, the
complainant provided a statement from the Advertising Regulatory Council of
Nigeria (ARCON). The statement included
the following excerpts:
[T]he
Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) […] bans the use of foreign
models and voice-over artists on any advertisement targeted or exposed on the
Nigerian advertising space with effect from 1st October 2022. […] All
advertisements, advertising and marketing communication materials are to make
use of only Nigerian model and voice-over artist[s].
5. The
publication said it did not accept that the headline was inaccurate,
misleading, or distorted; it considered it to be a fair summary of the article.
Notwithstanding this, as a gesture of goodwill, and prior to the complainant
making an IPSO complaint, the publication amended the online version of the
headline so that it instead read: “Nigeria becomes first country to ban foreign
models in adverts”.
6. The
complainant did not consider this sufficient to resolve his complaint, as he
considered that it did not correct the previous headline: the publication had
not admitted any error, offered an apology, explained why the headline had been
amended, and had not given the correction any publicity. The complainant
therefore made a complaint to IPSO.
7. The
complainant said that he would be content to resolve his complaint should the
newspaper publish an online correction as footnote to the article – with the
relevant search engines “put on notice” – and if the newspaper also published a
print correction with the same prominence as the original article (which
appeared on page 42 and in the ‘World’ section of the newspaper).
8.
During IPSO’s investigation, the publication expanded on its original response
to the complainant. It said that both headlines were supported by the text of
the article, further noting that a headline cannot – and is not required by
IPSO to – capture every nuance of its accompanying article, provided any claim
made in the headline can be supported by the text of an article. In this
instance, the headlines had focused on the aspect of the story which the
publication considered would be of interest to its target, British audience:
what the publication said was a de-facto ban on white models and British
accents. It said that the story was widely understood and discussed online in
these terms, and provided links to other publication which it said supported
this.
9. The
complainant said that the publication was within its rights to deny a breach of
the Code, as only IPSO’s Code Committee could determine whether or not it was
breached. However, he reiterated that he did not consider that the headline was
supported by the text of the article, and that the question of whether the
headline was misleading was an objective one: would the average person read the
headline and believe that Nigeria was discriminating against white people. He
said that it was, in his view, important that the media avoid sensationalism
and the “sowing of racial divisions in society”.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
10. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
11.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication – while maintaining that neither
headline represented a breach of the Editors’ Code – offered to print the
following correction in print in its usual Corrections & Clarifications
column, and online as a footnote to the article:
We said
in a headline that Nigeria had banished white models from adverts. In fact, as the accompanying article
explained, the ban extends to all foreigners, regardless of colour. We are
happy to make this clear.
12. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
13. As the complaint was successfully mediated,
the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had
been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 02/09/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/10/2022
Back to ruling listing