Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 13329-21 Nightingale House Hospice v Daily Post
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Nightingale House Hospice complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Hospice 'bans' supporters after
Welsh-language row”, published on 4 December 2021.
2. The
article, which appeared on page 8, reported that a “group of Welsh-speaking
fundraisers have been ‘banned’ from interacting with a charity in North Wales
following a row over the use of the language. Supporters of Nightingale House
Hospice (Hospis Ty’r Eos) in Wrexham said they were ‘banned from further
interaction’ with the hospice after expressing concerns about the charity’s
‘lack of respect’ for the Welsh language.” The article went on to include a
quote from a man, “a spokesperson for the group, [who] said they received a
letter from the hospice’s Chief Executive and Board of Trustees which thanked
them for their 30-year contribution but said ‘this is the end of our
communications’”.
3. The
article also reported that “[t]he group said they had raised concerns that
correspondence sent out by the charity was written only in English, without
including a Welsh translation. [The spokesperson] said these concerns were met
with ‘resistance’ from charity trustees, which is said to have led to the
charity cutting ties with the group altogether.”
4. The
article included a statement from the Hospice:
[A]ddressing
[the spokesperson’s] claims [which] confirmed the group had been asked to
‘desist from seeking to interfere with and influence the Hospice’s work.’ The
statement said: ‘Regrettably, the situation escalated to a position where
employees of the Hospice were left distressed and in tears as a result of
interactions with members of this group and the Hospice was left with no
alternative but to cut ties with the group concerned. […] Addressing the claims
that the hospice was not supportive of the Welsh language, the [Hospice] said:
‘The Hospice is very proud of its record in using the Welsh language whenever
it can. Whenever possible the Hospice’s publications are produced in English
and Welsh and the Hospice seeks to engage in Welsh with as many of its patients
and families who wish to do so.’ The statement continued: ‘The Hospice has
nothing to hide or fear in relation to its use of the Welsh language and wishes
to be entirely transparent about this matter. In an attempt to be transparent,
the Hospice’s solicitors have asked the individual who is pursuing the
complaint for permission to put all the correspondence in the public domain,
but he has not responded to that request.’
5. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Hospice 'cuts ties' with
fundraising group after 30 years in row over Welsh language”. The online
version of the article included an additional sub-headline, which read:
“Supporters of Nightingale House said they have been 'banned' from interacting
with the organisation”. The online version of the article was published on 2
December 2022.
6. Prior
to IPSO becoming involved with the complaint, on 3 December 2021, the
publication made several amendments to the online version of the article: The
sub-headline was changed from “Supporters of Nightingale House said that they
have been ‘banned’ from interacting with the organisation” to “But Nightingale
House Hospice says criticism of its bilingual policy was ‘unfair and
unwarranted’”. In addition, the first line of the article was changed from “A
group of Welsh speaking fundraisers have been ‘banned’ from interacting with a
charity in North Wales following a row about the language” to read “A hospice
has ‘cut ties’ with group of Welsh speaking fundraisers in North Wales
following a row over the use of the Welsh language”. Also, references to a
“spokesperson for the group” were changed to refer to the individual by name,
and to refer to him as “a supporter of Nightingale House Hospice”.
7. Several
additions were also made to the online article on this date. The sentence “A
Nightingale House Hospice spokesperson rejected criticism of its commitment to
the Welsh language as ‘unfair and unwarranted’" was added; a sentence was
also added referring to the “Chairman of the hospice's fundraising group 'Group
of Friends' [who] said [the spokesperson] is not a member of the fundraising
group and had not been appointed as a spokesperson on its behalf, but did not
wish to comment further.”
8. A
further comment from the Hospice was also added to the article on this date:
“The hospice's statement also addressed a complaint which was raised in
relation to the hospice’s Spring 2021 newsletter. The statement said: ‘The
print version of that newsletter was only produced in English due to the cost
of producing additional printed copies in Welsh. This complaint was received at
a time when the Hospice, along with all other charities, was experiencing the
most difficult of times in raising funds to enable its primary services to
continue operating. The Hospice did though produce digital versions of the same
newsletter in Welsh and English and made these available to the public online.
However, the individual concerned pursued the matter in correspondence with the
Hospice and escalated it to the extent that the Hospice’s Chair of Trustees was
singled out for inappropriate comment and the Hospice was forced to instruct
solicitors to deal with the issue.’"
9. The
following footnote was also added to the online version of the article on this
date:
*This
article has been amended to make clear [named individual] is not a
‘spokesperson’ for, nor a member of, the Nightingale House Hospice fundraising
group. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for any confusion caused.
10. Also
prior to IPSO becoming involved with the complaint, on 22 December 2021, the
newspaper published the following print correction on page 8:
On
Saturday, December 4, on page eight of the Daily Post, an article was published
about a Welsh-language dispute between Nightingale House Hospice (Hospis Ty’r
Eros) and a hospice fundraising group. In the article we described [named
individual] as a “spokesperson” for the group. [Named individual] is neither a
member of, nor a spokesperson for, the group. We are happy to clarify this and
apologise for any confusion this has caused.
11. The
complainant said that the article included several inaccuracies in breach of
Clause 1. He first noted that the individual who the article repeatedly
referred to as being the spokesperson of the Supporters of Nightingale House
Hospice group was not in fact a spokesperson for the group, nor indeed a member
of the group. The complainant provided an email from the Chairman of the now
defunct group to support its position on this point, and noted that the
Chairman had contacted the publication prior to the publication of the print
version of the article to make it aware of this point, and that he had spoken
with a reporter who had acknowledged and replied to his concerns. With this in
mind, the complainant also said that it was inaccurate for the article to
report that the Hospice had “cut ties” with the group over the issue; it had in
fact, ceased its relationship with the group for unrelated reasons.
12. It
also said that it had sent the publication its own press release, prior to the
article’s publication, setting out its position regarding the claims and its
record on the Welsh language. The statement said that the Hospice was
“concerned to learn that a member of the public is seeking to create adverse
publicity for the Hospice and has approached a number of media outlets for this
purpose. The issues raised relate to the Hospice’s support for the Welsh
language and issues around a group of fundraisers previously associated with
the Hospice […] Due to the continuing actions of a particular support group
which raised funds for the Hospice, correspondence had to be entered into
asking the group’s members to desist from seeking to interfere with and
influence the Hospice’s work.”
13. The
complainant then said that, by publishing information from the individual who
claimed to a spokesperson without further verification, the publication has not
taken care over the accuracy of the article. It also said that it gave the
comments of the individual inappropriate credence and veracity.
14. The
complainant then said that further inaccuracies had arisen from publishing the
comments of the unverified spokesperson, as doing so had created a misleading
picture of the Hospice’s attitude and effort in relation to its use of the
Welsh language. It said that these allegations arose from a single incident, in
which the Hospice had been unable to publish a hard copy of a single document
in Welsh as well as English – though it had provided a Welsh copy of the
document in question on its website. It said that this was not referred to in
the article.
15. The
complainant finally said that the article and the manner in which it was
written was biased in favour of the Hospice’s critic – the man who had claimed
to be a spokesperson. He said that this was demonstrated by the fact that the
publication had only published a portion of a lengthy statement it had
provided, while the critic was seemingly allowed “carte blanche” to criticise
the Hospice and its record on the Welsh language.
16. The
complainant accepted that the publication had amended the online version of the
article 24 hours after its initial publication. However, it said that these
amendments were not sufficient where they did not give notice to people who had
already read the incorrect version of the article, nor did the amendments include
a comment making clear why the article had been amended. It said that it wished
for the newspaper to publish a full and unreserved apology prominently on its
website. It also said that it wanted the full statement provided by the Hospice
to the newspaper to accompany the online publication of the apology, and that
this should be done at a similar time of day that the original article was
published.
17. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that it had been
contacted by an individual who purported to be the spokesperson for the
fundraising group, and who had previously been considered a reliable contact of
the publication. It said that, where this was the case, there was no reason not
to take his assertion that he was a spokesperson of the fundraising group at
face value. It said that the fundraising group had no website, social media, or
public presence and this was the first time – to its knowledge – it had been
contacted by the group. It had therefore published the claims of the unverified
spokesperson in good faith, it said.
18. The
publication provided a copy of the statement from the unverified spokesperson
to support its position. While the statement did not state that the man was a
spokesperson for the Supporters of Nightingale Hospice House, it stated that
“[a] group of Welsh speaking supporters of the hospice for over 30 years have
been shocked by being banned from ‘further interaction’ with the hospice by the
Chief Executive and trustees. The ban was imposed after they expressed concerns
at the lack of respect shown to the Welsh language within the publications,
fund raising and retail divisions.” It also referred to a “group” of supporters
throughout the statement.
19.
While the publication accepted that the unverified spokesperson’s claims were
the sole basis for reporting that the hospice had “’cut ties’ with fundraising
group […] in a row over Welsh language”, it said that it had put the claims to
the Hospice and a substantial portion of the Hospice’s lengthy response was
included in the article. It said that the reporter had not named the unverified
spokesperson when seeking comment, however, its statement included a reference
to an “individual” who was “pursuing the complaint”. It appeared, therefore,
that the Hospice was aware of the unverified spokesperson and their claims, and
had not sought – prior to publication – to make clear that they were not acting
on behalf of fundraising group.
20. The
publication then said that the article did not report as fact that the Hospice
did not treat the Welsh language with due care and respect. These claims were
attributed to the unverified spokesperson, and clearly presented as his view of
the Hospice’s activities, Moreover, it noted that the Hospice’s response to these
claims was also included in the article, therefore putting its position on
record regarding the allegations.
21. The
publication also did not accept that omitting parts of the Hospice’s statement
from the original article rendered it inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It
noted that the statement was a lengthy one, and that it therefore had to be
edited down for space constraints and legibility. However, while it did not
accept that omitting a portion of the statement represented a breach of Clause
1, it did accept that including a reference to the digital version of the
newsletter – which was omitted from the original statement as published – would
have provided greater context. This was why, it said, it had amended the
article to include this part of the statement.
22. The
publication also did not accept any allegation of bias. It said that the
article had set out both sides of the story, and that a significant portion of
the article focused on the Hospice’s rebuttals. It further set out its position
that the article did not adopt or endorse either of the positions set out in
the article.
23. The
publication proposed to publish an additional print correction, to appear on
page 2 of the newspaper; the additional correction was proposed on 23 May 2022
– over 5 months after the complainant first contacted the publication; 2 months
after IPSO made the publication aware that the article raised a possible
breach; and a month after IPSO began its investigation. The correction would read as follows:
In our
article “Hospice ‘bans’ supporters after Welsh-language row” published on
December 4, 2021, in regards to the term 'ban', the trust has advised that its
decision to cut ties with the fundraisers was nothing to do with a row over use
of the Welsh language and was for entirely unrelated reasons. The article also
stated that correspondence sent out by the Nightingale House Hospice (Hospis
Ty’r Eros) was written only in English, without including a Welsh translation.
We are happy to clarify that this related to one newsletter published in Spring
2021, which was printed in hard copy only in English, but was, in fact, also
available online in Welsh. The hospice says that due to financial
considerations during the Covid 19 pandemic, it sought to avoid the cost of
printing additional copies. However, the hospice points out that the newsletter
was always available electronically on its website in the Welsh language
version for those wishing to access it We apologise for any confusion caused.
24. The
publication also said that it would be happy to expand the wording of the
online footnote clarification to apologise for any embarrassment caused; to
change the caption of the Facebook post linking to the article and to add a
correction as the first comment on the Facebook post; and to publish a tweet
highlighting the change and linking to it.
25. The
complainant again expressed concern that the newspaper had not attempted to
verify that the man was a spokesperson for the fundraising group, given that it
had not offered any evidence to support their assertion that he was a trusted
source, and where it had also admitted that it had not had any prior
interaction or contact with the fundraising group.
26. The
complainant also said that it would have had no reason to dispute that the man
was not a spokesperson for the Supporters of Nightingale House Hospice, where
the publication had not advised the Hospice of the name of the man or that he
was claiming to be acting on behalf of the Supporters of Nightingale House
Hospice. It noted that a journalist working for another media organisation had
contacted the Chairman of the Supporters group to verify whether the unverified
spokesperson was speaking on their behalf, and had been informed of the correct
position. The complainant did not accept, therefore, the publication’s argument
that it could not verify the man’s position within the fundraising group.
27.
Finally, the complainant said that the correction proposed by the publication
was in fact inaccurate, where the decision to not publish a hard copy version
of a newsletter in Welsh was not prompted by the pandemic.
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
28. Both
parties accepted that the individual whom the article referred to as being a
spokesperson for the Supporters of Nightingale House Hospice did not hold this
position, and in fact was not a member of the group in question. Where this was
indisputably inaccurate, the first question for the Committee was therefore
whether the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on
this point.
29. The
Committee carefully reviewed the statement from the unverified spokesperson,
and noted that it did not refer to the Supporters of Nightingale Hospice;
rather, it referred to an unspecified “group” of supporters. The statement
therefore did not provide a basis for linking the spokesperson with the group
and, moreover, the publication had not attempted to verify the man’s alleged
links with the Supporters of Nightingale House Hospice. This represented a failure
to take care, in breach of Clause 1 (i). This breach had led to the publication
of information which was significantly inaccurate, where the Committee
considered there to be a material distinction between an individual raising
concerns about an organisation’s approach to the Welsh language and a named
group of supporters and fundraisers raising such concern. The publication was therefore required by the
terms of Clause 1 (ii) to correct this information.
30. Where
the publication was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii) to correct the
inaccurate information, the Committee turned next to the question of whether
the action undertaken by the publication was sufficient to avoid a further
breach of the Clause. Prior to IPSO being made aware of the complaint, the
newspaper had published both online and print clarifications, making clear that
the unverified spokesperson was not a member of the group, nor was he a
spokesperson. These clarifications had been published on page 8 of the print
edition – the same page as the original article – and at the bottom of the
amended online article. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the remedial
action put the correct position on record, had been published promptly, and had
been published with due prominence. There was no further breach of Clause 1
(ii) on this point.
31. The
complainant had said that it was inaccurate to report that the hospice had “cut
ties” or “banned” the Supporters of Nightingale House Hospice group over
concerns about the Welsh language, and that it had cut ties for unrelated
reasons. It said this position was set out
in the press release it had circulated to the press – including the
newspaper – prior to publication.
32. The
Committee noted that the Hospice’s press release – which responded to the
circulation of allegations of a “ban” – and a substantial part of its comment
had been included in the article, setting out the position that the “ban” was
in fact due to “a position where employees of the Hospice were left distressed
and in tears as a result of interactions with members of this group”. The
Committee was therefore satisfied that the article made clear that this was a
claim on the part of the spokesperson, by including the publication’s rebuttal
to the claim and setting out its position. In circumstances where the article
set out the Hospice’s response to the claims, which were distinguished as such,
there was no failure to take care on this point, and the article was not
significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading on this point. There was
therefore no breach of Clause 1.
33. The
complainant had raised further concerns that the article gave a misleading
picture of the Hospice’s attitude and effort in relation to its use of the
Welsh language. It considered this to be the case where the concerns raised by
the unverified spokesperson related to a single incident, in which a hard copy
of a newsletter had not been published in Welsh. The Committee first noted that
the article made clear that the man had said that he “had raised concerns that
correspondence sent out by the charity was written only in English, without
including a Welsh translation” – therefore, it was made clear what the concerns
related to. In addition, the article included a lengthy response from the
Hospice, setting out its position that “The Hospice is very proud of its record
in using the Welsh language whenever it can. Whenever possible the Hospice’s
publications are produced in English and Welsh and the Hospice seeks to engage
in Welsh with as many of its patients and families who wish to do so. […] The
Hospice has nothing to hide or fear in relation to its use of the Welsh
language and wishes to be entirely transparent about this matter.” Therefore,
the Committee did not consider that the article was misleading in relation to
the Hospice’s attitude and effort in relation to its use of the Welsh language;
it made clear the grounds for concern, as well as the Hospice’s position that
the concern was unwarranted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
34. The complainant had also expressed concern
that the first version of the article omitted part of a statement it had made.
The initial version of the article had omitted the following in its statement
from the Hospice: “The print version of that newsletter was only produced in
English due to the cost of producing additional printed copies in Welsh. This
complaint was received at a time when the Hospice, along with all other charities,
was experiencing the most difficult of times in raising funds to enable its
primary services to continue operating. The Hospice did though produce digital
versions of the same newsletter in Welsh and English and made these available
to the public online . However, the individual concerned pursued the matter in
correspondence with the Hospice and escalated it to the extent that the
Hospice’s Chair of Trustees was singled out for inappropriate comment and the
Hospice was forced to instruct solicitors to deal with the issue.”
35. However, the Committee did not consider that
omitting this portion of the statement rendered the article significantly
misleading, distorted, or inaccurate; it was not in dispute that the version of
the newsletter which was sent out by the Hospice had only been published in
English, notwithstanding the specific reasons for this decision. The Committee
noted that the term “correspondence” was somewhat ambiguous, and could be read
as referring to multiple pieces of correspondence rather than a single
newsletter. However, where the Hospice’s statement as published in the article
set out that “[w]henever possible the Hospice’s publications are produced in
English and Welsh and the Hospice seeks to engage in Welsh with as many of its
patients and families who wish to do so”, the Committee did not consider that
omitting the fact that the complaint arose from a single piece of
correspondence rendered the article significantly inaccurate or misleading.
36. The
Committee did not consider that omitting this part of the statement represented
a breach of Clause 1; nevertheless, it welcomed the newspaper’s decision to add
this portion of the statement to later versions of the article.
37. The
Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of bias. It makes clear the
press has the right to be partisan. Therefore, a concern that the article was
biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.
Conclusion(s)
38. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
39. The
published clarifications put the correct position on record and were offered
promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 16/03/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/08/2022
Back to ruling listing