Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28673-20 Webb v
The Northern Echo
Summary of Complaint
1. Alan Webb complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Northern Echo breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Hardwick Hall Hotel's outdoor live music and
entertainment” published on 20 August 2020.
2. The article, which only appeared online, reported on a
series of events due to be held at a hotel.
The article claimed that the events were “in aid of” a charity and that
“the charity and hotel managers have lined up a series of outdoor events, to be
held over the next three weeks.” It included a quote from the charity’s chief
executive, and the article reported that she had “said the cash raised over the
three weekends is vital.”
3. The complainant, who identified himself as a local resident
who had been disturbed by the noise from the events, said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. The complainant said that not all events
described in the article as having taken place “over the next three weeks” were
in aid of the charity; he said that the charity’s Facebook page showed only two
of the events, and the charity was only selling tickets for these two events.
He said that the article would mislead readers into believing that all of the
money raised from the whole series of events would go to the charity rather
than the hotel.
4. The complainant also said that the article was
contradicted by earlier articles about the events published by the newspaper,
which he provided. The articles in question did not refer to the events being
in aid of the charity and named only two events in which ticket proceeds would
go to the charity.
5. The publication said it did not accept that the article
under complaint was inaccurate. It said it had been in contact with the charity,
both before the article’s publication and after receiving the complaint, and it
had confirmed that the events reported in the article were in aid of the
charity. The publication provided: emails from the charity confirming this;
messages between a representative of the charity and a reporter at the
publication in which the representative asked the reporter to cover the series
of events at the hotel; paying-in slips showing that the charity had fundraised
and subsequently banked monies raised from raffles conducted at some of the
events; photographs showing representatives of the charity present at the
events; and a poster advertising the events, which stated that two of the
events were “in aid of” the charity and also included the charity’s logo at the
bottom of the poster. It also noted that the article contained a quote from the
charity’s chief executive; although it was unable to provide contemporary notes
of the conversation between the reporter and the chief executive – as the
reporter did not have regular access to the office due to Covid-19 restrictions
- it said that it was satisfied that the article was accurate and that it had
taken care over the accuracy of the information in the article.
6. The publication said that it did not agree with the
complainant’s position that the article was contradicted by an earlier article
about the various events. It said that the earlier article reported that the
proceeds from tickets of two of the events would go directly to the charity;
however, it did not follow that the other events were not “in aid of” the
charity, where the charity fundraised at all events and was also present to
raise awareness of its work.
7. The complainant said that he did not dispute that the
charity had been present at the events, but noted that the photographs and
paying-in slips provided by the publication appeared to indicate that the
charity had only been present and received money from some of the events,
rather than all of them. He also noted that the poster provided by the
publication showed only two events which were explicitly said to be “in aid of”
the charity.
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
8. The complainant provided both screenshots from the
charity’s Facebook page and an earlier article published by the newspaper to
support his position that the article under complaint was inaccurate in stating
that all events taking place “over the next three weeks” at the venue were in
aid of the charity. However, the publication had been in direct contact with the
charity, both before and after the publication of the article, and the charity
had not disputed the accuracy of the article; indeed, following the complaint,
it had substantiated the publication’s report of the events. Given that the
charity itself – which was best placed to assess whether it had benefited from
the entire series of events or just two of the events - did not dispute that
the events held at the hotel were in aid of the charity, the Committee did not
agree that the Facebook page cited by the complainant or the earlier coverage
in the newspaper demonstrated the article to be inaccurate. There was no breach
of the Code on this point.
9. The Committee noted that the complainant had expressed
concerns that the article may mislead readers into believing that the entirety
of the profits from the scheduled events would go to the charity. However, the
article only said that the events were “in aid of” the charity and not that the
charity would receive all of the profits from the events. Given that the
charity considered itself to have benefited both financially and in terms of
public awareness from the series of events as a whole, the Committee did not
find that the description of the events being “in aid of” the charity was
inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point.
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. N/A
Date complaint received: 25/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/05/2021