Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12005-20 Oliver v The National
Summary
of Complaint
1. Neil
Oliver complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
National breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Oliver gives support to slavery row historian” published on
3 July 2020.
2. The
article appeared with a sub-headline which said that “[Organisation] president
voices ‘love’ for [historian]”. It explained that the complainant had declared
his “love” for a historian repeatedly accused of racism. It reported that the
day before publication of the article, the historian had given an interview in
which he made comments which had been widely condemned as being racist. The
article explained that the interviewer had posted a tweet promoting the
upcoming interview in response to which the complainant had tweeted “Tell him I
love him, by all means”. The article reported what the historian had later said
in the interview which had caused the controversy and that he had faced
multiple allegations of discrimination in recent years.
3. The
article also appeared online on 2 July 2020 with the headline “Neil Oliver
declares love for 'racist' historian [name]”. The article was largely the same
as the version which appeared in print. It explained that prior to the
interview taking place, the interviewer had posted on Twitter to say “I am
interviewing [historian] today on the lack of scholarship behind the assault on
our past, our statues and behind the Black Lives Matter movement. I will have
to resist the urge to tell him I love him” and this was what the complainant
had responded to by saying “Tell him I love him, by all means”. It included a
screenshot of this interaction. The online article also gave more details of
the historian’s previous comments which had been criticised as being considered
discriminatory – for example, in relation to the 2011 riots. It also reported
that in 2015, a university was “forced” to take down a video fronted by the
historian after staff and students claimed he had been “aggressively racist”.
4. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 1. He said that the headline
of the online article and sub-headline of the print article had taken his tweet
out of context and gave the impression that he had declared his “love” for the
historian after the controversial interview which was not the case. He said
that he tweeted his support for the historian because he had shown him kindness
in previous years. He noted that the text of the article reported that the
historian had been accused of racism whereas the headline of the online article
asserted as fact that he was a racist. He said that therefore, the online
headline was not supported by the text. He also said that the newspaper should
have contacted him prior to publication, and if it had done so he would have
made clear that the tweet was not a gesture of support for the historian’s then
yet to be broadcast racist views. He was also concerned that the article gave
the impression that he was a supporter of racist views, which was not the case.
5. The
newspaper did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said that the
complainant had tweeted that he loved the historian without qualification or
explanation, and it was entitled to report this. It said that the articles made
clear that the complainant had tweeted prior to the interview, but in any
event, the historian had already been repeatedly publicly accused of making
racist comments, and provided examples in addition to those included in the
online article. As such, it said that even in the absence of his most recent
comments it would still be accurate to report that the complainant had declared
his love for the “racist” historian. It said that reporting on the
complainant’s public tweets did not require the newspaper to approach him for
comment prior to publication, and not doing so did not make the article an
inaccurate report of his actions. Nevertheless, it said that if the complainant
wished to expand upon his comments it would be happy to consider publishing an
article or letter from him. It also noted that the tweet remained online
without amendment even after the controversial interview was aired.
Relevant
Code Provisions
6.
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. In
his complaint, the complainant made clear that his support for the historian
did not extend to his allegedly racist comments and views. The complainant’s
tweet said that “I still love him” in relation to the historian and did not
include any context or qualification for the complainant’s support for the
historian, which the newspaper was entitled to report. The claim in the
headline to the online article that the historian was racist was presented in
quotation marks which indicated that it was a claim, rather than a statement of
fact, and the newspaper was able to demonstrate that the historian had
repeatedly been accused of racism. The headline reported that the complainant
had expressed his love for the historian, which was an accurate reflection of
the complainant’s tweet, and not that the complainant had expressed support for
the allegedly racist views expressed by the historian. As such there was no
failure to take care over the accuracy of the headline to the online article.
There was no breach of Clause 1(i). Where the complainant accepted that he had
sent the tweet in which he had expressed love for the historian and given that
the historian had been accused of racism, there was no significant inaccuracy
requiring correction under Clause 1(ii).
8. With
regards to the main body of the articles, they both made clear that the
complainant had posted his tweet on the day prior to the interview in which the
controversial comments had been made by the historian. The online article also
included a screenshot of the complainant’s tweet, making clear that it was in
response to the interviewer promoting the upcoming interview. As such, it was
made clear in both articles that the complainant had expressed his admiration
for the historian prior to the interview being given. Furthermore, the articles
did not suggest that the complainant had aligned himself with the allegedly
racist views of the historian – it simply reported what the complainant had
tweeted his admiration for the historian, and that the historian had expressed
the views reported in the articles. There was no failure to take care over the
accuracy of the body of either of the articles in reporting the complainant’s
tweet, and no breach of Clause 1(i). There was no significant inaccuracy
regarding the timeline of events or the nature of the complainant’s tweet about
the historian and, therefore, no correction was required under Clause 1(ii).
9. There
is no standalone requirement to contact subjects of articles for comments prior
to publication, although not doing may constitute a failure to take care over
the accuracy of the article if it gives rise to a significant inaccuracy. In
this case, the article had accurately reported publicly available remarks made
by the complainant, and not contacting the complainant for comment did not give
rise to any significant inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 in not
contacting the complainant for comment prior to publication of the articles.
Conclusions
10. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11. N/A
Date
complaint received: 24/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/11/2020