Resolution Statement – 12231-20 Hannaway v edinburghlive.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Elizabeth Hannaway complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that edinburghlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Edinburgh Lush store hit back after being
targeted by [named author] protesters in an ‘act of hate’” published on 4
August 2020.
2. The
article reported that a shop in Edinburgh had placed a large sign in its window
after it said that it was ‘targeted’ the previous Sunday by protesters. It
reported that it was the newspaper’s understanding this consisted of stickers
with a ‘transphobic message’ being stuck to the shop following a small
gathering of self-described ‘gender critical feminists’. It reported that the
group carried banners in support of a high-profile author who had recently been
accused of transphobia, and the article explained why she had been accused of
this. The article reported a social media statement from the shop, part of
which said: “Anyone passing our store this morning you may have seen that store
front had been targeted by a transphobic group, because of this we have a new
window graphic”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was misleading in breach of Clause 1 by not
making clear the basis for the claim that the shop had been the victim of a transphobic
attack. She said the “attack” consisted of a sticker stuck on the outside of
the shop which said “keep prisons single sex”. She said that this was not
transphobic. She also said that there was no indication that the protest
involved supporters of the author or the author herself, although she did
accept that the protesters carried banners which said “I love [author]”.
Finally, she said that the article was unbalanced and biased against the
protestors.
4. The
newspaper did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said that it was
entitled to report the shop’s claim that it had been the victim of a
transphobic attack and had taken care to present this as such via the use of
quotation marks and the inclusion of the shop’s social media statement. It said
that the article made clear that it was its “understanding” that this consisted
of stickers being stuck to the shop by the protesters, and reported in
quotation marks that these had a “transphobic message”. It said that it had
since contacted the shop to clarify what these stickers had said, however the
shop had not responded to its inquiries. The newspaper also noted that the
complainant did not have any first-hand knowledge of the shop or the protest,
and the stickers she referred to were in relation to a branch in London. It
provided photographs from the event showing the protestors with “I love
[author]” posters and t-shirts and putting stickers on a different building in
Edinburgh. It also provided a link to an online forum where people were discussing
the event, in which one person said that they might be able to sticker the shop
referred to in the article.
Relevant
Code Provisions
5.
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
6. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
7.
During IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper offered to contact the protestors,
and consider adding a quote from them setting out their reasons for their
protest.
8. The
complainant said that this would resolve her complaint to her satisfaction.
9. 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: 05/08/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/11/2020