Resolution
Statement – 14832-23 Hyman v Sunday Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Mathew Hyman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Sunday Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “CASHING IN ON MISOGNY”, published on 15 January 2023.
2.
The article reported that the complainant was “an online influencer who
preaches misogynist propaganda” and was “one of millions motivated by Andrew
Tate” – it later described Mr Tate as the complainant’s “idol”. The article
reported that the complainant promoted “toxic masculinity” through videos and
podcasts uploaded online, with his “bizarre advice to blokes include[ing]: give
your girlfriend anxiety by threatening to sleep around”; and “ban women from
apps like Instagram because they will use them to cheat”. It also stated that
the complainant “reckons women who go clubbing are only out to cheat and they
should stay at home to raise children” and that “only those with a 'high-value
man' never feel the compulsion to stray, whereas men have a 'biological
imperative' to sleep around”. The article also included the complainant’s
comments to a reporter and said that he had been “suspended” by his employer –
the Department for Work and Pension – because of the publication’s findings.
The article included a statement from the Department and was accompanied by a
photograph of the complainant.
3.
The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “EXCLUSIVE: DWP worker unmasked as Andrew Tate disciple preaching
toxic misogyny online” and went on to describe the complainant as a “Tate
fanboy”.
4.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate and misleading, in breach
of Clause 1 (Accuracy). He said that the article misrepresented his position as
well as the comments he made during the interview. The complainant denied that
he had advised his followers to “give your girlfriend anxiety by threatening to
sleep around”; to “ban women from apps such as Instagram because they will use
them to cheat”; that “women who go clubbing are only doing so to cheat, and
that they should instead stay at home to raise children”; and that men had a
“biological imperative” to sleep around.
He also said that the article was inaccurate to describe him as a “Tate
fanboy” and to report that he idolised the man. Further, the complainant said
that the article was inaccurate to report that he “was suspended” from his job.
5.
The complainant said that the article represented an unjustified intrusion into
his private life, in breach of Clause 2. He said that the article identified
his place of work, after he had explicitly asked for this information not to be
included. He further said that the publication of the article caused him
distress, in breach of Clause 4.
6.
The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It maintained
that the article gave an accurate summary of the complainant’s comments on
social media as well as those provided to its reporter during the interview. To
support its position, it provided several examples of the videos posted by the
complainant on social media. Further, the publication did not accept that the
article was inaccurate to describe the complainant as a “Tate fanboy” where he
had confirmed to the reporter that the videos posted by this individual had
been an “influence” on him; he had previously posted videos online discussing
Mr Tate and “what it meant to be a man”; and where he followed a Mr Tate
“fanpage” on Instagram.
7.
While the publication accepted that the complainant had expressed a wish for
his job in government not to be disclosed, it argued that there was a public
interest in reporting this information given his position and the nature of the
claims made. It did not accept a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4.
8.
Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO, and in an effort
to resolve the complaint, and as a gesture of goodwill, the publication amended
the online article to report that the complainant’s advice “includes: give your
girlfriend anxiety by making her worry that you're sleeping around”. It also
removed reference to the word “ban” with regard to his advice about the use of
Instagram.
Relevant
Clause 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.
Clause
2 (Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii)
It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public
or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In
cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made
with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These
provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Mediated
Outcome
9.
The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the
parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10.
During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered, as a gesture of goodwill,
to further amend the online article by removing the terms “misogynist” and
“Tate disciple” from the headline and the following disputed statements from
the text of the article: “Hyman’s bizarre advice to blokes includes: give your
girlfriend anxiety by making her worry that you're sleeping around”; “Hyman is
employed by the Department for Work and Pensions – who last night suspended him
over our findings”; and “Hyman has said of his idol”.
11.
The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
12.
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: 04/02/23
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/05/23