Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 15664-20 Thompson v Barnsley Chronicle
Summary
of Complaint
1. Chris
Thompson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Barnsley Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Orwell ‘was wrong’ about Barnsley Town Hall”,
published on 21 February 2020.
2. The
article reported on an art student’s research into George Orwell. The article
reported that Orwell had criticised the Council’s Town Hall as being an
unnecessary build when the region lacked housing. However, the student’s
research had found that the hall had been built using a grant that could not be
used to build houses or roads. The article contained a quote from the student:
“I wondered how he got away with it… I’ve realised now there are some parallels
between what Orwell was saying back then, and what people are saying about the
town centre now. There’s always a level of suspicion around council spending,
but in this case the council couldn’t have spent that money on anything else.”
3. The
complainant, the student in the article, said that the article was inaccurate
in breach of Clause 1 as he had never said the quote attributed to him in the
article. He provided a copy his notes which he said he had followed when he was
interviewed by the publication, and which he said supported his position that,
in particular, he had not mentioned “suspicion around council spending” or that
he wondered how Orwell had “got away with it”. He said that the publication of
the article had caused him both professional and personal loss.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. The reporter had taken notes
at the time of the interview, which it provided to IPSO and reflected what was
written in the article. It said that the article had been a briefer report than
the notes provided by the complainant, and that the quotes attributed to the
complainant may have lost some of their original context, but were still
accurate. He said the first part of the published quote had been edited for
reasons of space and that the full quote provided by the complainant had been
“There’s always a level of suspicion around council spending and government
decision making, but in this case there was no possible way of spending it on
social projects. The council couldn’t have spent that money on anything else.”
The reporter’s notes also recorded that the complainant had said “I wonder how
he got away with it." The publication said that the quotes published in
the article may not be exactly the same as the notes provided by the
complainant, as they reflected what had been said by the complainant in the
interview and had not been taken from the complainant’s notes. Following the
complaint, the publication deleted the story from its social media as a gesture
of goodwill.
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
5. The
Committee noted that there was a disagreement between the complainant and the
publication as to whether the complainant had said the quotes which had been
attributed to him in the article. The reporter had taken contemporaneous notes
during the interview with the complainant and supplied these to IPSO during its
investigation. The reporter’s notes recorded that, during the interview, the
complainant had said “I wonder how he got away with it”. Whilst the complainant
disputed that he had made this comment about George Orwell, where the
contemporaneous notes supported what had been reported in the article, there was
no breach of Clause 1.
6. The
reporter’s notes recorded that during the course of the interview the
complainant had said “(I've) realised
(now there are some) parallels between what George Orwell was saying about
(the) town hall back then and what people (are) saying about (the) town centre
now. People should be a bit more positive"; the quotation attributed to
the complainant in the article read: “I’ve realised now there are some
parallels between what Orwell was saying back then, and what people are saying
about the town centre now.” The reporter’s notes also recorded that the
complainant had said “There’s always a level of suspicion around council
spending and government decision making, but in this case there was no possible
way of spending it on social projects. The council couldn’t have spent that
money on anything else”; the quotation attributed to the complainant in the
article read: “There’s always a level of suspicion around council spending, but
in this case the council couldn’t have spent that money on anything else.”
Whilst the comments made by the complainant had been abridged in the quotes
attributed to him in the article, the meaning of what he had said had not been
changed, and the complainant’s comment regarding social projects had been
explained earlier in the article. On this basis, the publication had not failed
to take care to publish the complainant’s comments accurately and there was no
breach of Clause 1(i). Where the quotes attributed to the complainant in the
article were an accurate representation of what the complainant had said in the
interview, there was no significant inaccuracy to correct under Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
7. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
8. N/A
Date
complaint received: 17/08/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/12/2020
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.