01242-24 Finlay v Sunday World

Summary of Complaint

1. Lee Finlay complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday World breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “FAIR CITY FUN AS 'FINZER' AND 'WEE MAC' HEAD SOUTH”, published on 17 March 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 5 – reported on several aspects of the complainant’s lifestyle and spending habits, such as that he had: “sampled a taste of the champagne life with a pricy weekend at the five-star Westbury Hotel”, and that he “ha[d] also been snapped living it up in Dubai”. The article reported that the complainant and another man “were sporting their ‘Turkey teeth’” when dining at a bar. It also said that the complainant “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth” and that he and another man “[we]re sporting exclusive Moncler jackets” that cost £2,000 each. The article later reported that, “[s]ources in the east of the city say there is anger at the ostentatious lifestyles being flaunted on social media” and that “an East Belfast source” said “’[t]he days of flashing the cash are coming to an end’”.

3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for several reasons. First, the complainant said he had never been to Dubai. Second, he said the article was inaccurate to report that he had “Turkey teeth” as he had no dental work completed in Turkey. Third, he said he did not have veneers and had not spent money on cosmetic dental work. Fourth, he said he did not currently own, nor had he previously owned a Moncler jacket. The complainant felt that the article sought to portray that he was living a “lavish lifestyle” and inferred that this was the fruit of impropriety and was beyond his financial means. The complainant considered this was inaccurate as he had not acted in such a manner.

4. The complainant also said he was not contacted prior to the publication of the article, and therefore the allegations were not put to him directly, or his representative, rendering the article inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 in relation to the alleged inaccurate claims – it said the article was a straightforward news story that did not require an elaborate reading. The publication said a source had said he had been to Dubai and, in any case, it did not consider that information relating to the location in which a person went on holiday constituted a significant inaccuracy. It added that the journalist sought to verify this information with a second source who said they had seen a picture of the complainant in Dubai on a private Facebook page.

6. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 1 in relation to the term “Turkey teeth”. The publication supported its position with a copy of an article it had wrote in 2019, headlined “Fake smiles of the gnasher goons”, which reported that the complainant “seem[ed] to have caught the bug too and can be seen here sporting some ‘UVF teeth’”. The publication considered it took the appropriate level of care required before publishing the article complained of where it had previously published the information in 2019, and it was not subject to complaint.

7. Turning next to the alleged breach of Clause 1 in relation to the article reporting that the complainant had “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth”, the publication did not accept a breach of the Clause. It said that the £20,000 figure was an estimate it had made based on online searches that suggested costs for veneers could vary from £6k to £25k, as well as anecdotal information provided by two individuals about the cost of such dental work - £17 and £23k – and that the journalist used the mean figure of these sums.

8. The publication did not consider it was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that the complainant was “sporting [his] exclusive Moncler jacket” that cost £2,000. It said this information was provided by a separate source to the sources previously used, and that it did not consider the brand of jacket worn by the complainant to be a significant inaccuracy. It added that the cost of the jacket was checked on the Moncler website.

9. The publication did not accept that not contacting the complainant prior to the publication of the article rendered the article inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said the majority of information under complaint had previously been published without resulting in any complaints. The publication did not consider there were any significant inaccuracies within the article that required correction.

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.

Findings of the Committee

10. The Committee first considered whether the article had inaccurately reported that the complainant: had “been snapped living it up in Dubai”; had “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth”; and was “sporting [his] exclusive Moncler jacket” that cost £2,000. The Committee noted that the claims were not identified in the article as being from sources and were not otherwise distinguished as comment by, for example, the use of quote marks, and the Committee therefore found they were reported as statements of fact. The Committee did not consider the publication had provided sufficient evidence to support such claims; during the investigation it had said that this information had been provided by various sources but had not demonstrated that they had detailed personal knowledge of the complainant or what he had spent his money on. The Committee also noted that the publication had not taken any further steps to evidence the claims which had been made by its sources and the fact that the complainant had not made a complaint when similar claims had previously been published was not sufficient evidence to justify the reporting of the claims as fact. In addition, the Committee considered that reporting on the amount of money the complainant was said to have spent on various procedures, holidays and items of clothing was also misleading in circumstances where the claims of such expenditure had not been distinguished as comment or conjecture . As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (iv) in relation to these claims.

11. The Committee next considered whether the article required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires that significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information is corrected.

12. In considering whether the article was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report, as fact, that the complainant: had “been snapped living it up in Dubai”; had “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth”; and was “sporting [his] exclusive Moncler jacket” that cost £2,000 – and therefore in need of correction – the Committee had regard for the article as a whole. Given that the article focused on the complainant’s alleged spending habits and lifestyle which the complainant had denied, the Committee considered that reporting the claims as fact was significantly misleading where the article had not included the complainant’s denial. As such, a correction was required. Given that the publication did not offer to publish a correction that put the complainant’s denial on record, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

13. The Committee next considered the term “Turkey teeth”. The Committee had regard to the article published in 2019 that the publication provided to support its argument. The Committee noted that the term “Turkey teeth” was a commonly used colloquialism for a variety of dental procedures – it did not necessarily indicate that a person had undergone dental procedures in Turkey. The Committee, therefore, did not consider the article was inaccurate to refer to him as having “Turkey teeth”. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

14. In addition to this, the Committee considered whether it was a breach of Clause 1 not to contact the complainant prior to the publication of the article. The Committee was clear that the Editors’ Code does not include a standalone requirement for publications to contact interested parties before publishing articles. In some cases, it may be necessary to contact individuals in order to take care that the article is accurate, or to give interested parties the opportunity to respond to any significant inaccuracies in published articles. Notwithstanding the breach above, which may have been avoided had the publication approached the complainant prior to the publication of the article, it did not consider that not contacting the complainant before publication was in and of itself a breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (iv) and (ii).

Remedial action required

16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

17. The Committee considered that to report as fact that the complainant: had “been snapped living it up in Dubai”; had “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth”; and was “sporting [his] exclusive Moncler jacket” that cost £2,000 was misleading in relation to the complainant’s spending habits. As the publication did not put the complainant’s denial on record, and the article included several claims about the complainant’s spending habits, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy given the nature of the claims themselves. The correction should acknowledge that it reported the following suppositions as fact, namely that the complainant: had “been snapped living it up in Dubai”; had “forked out an estimated £20,000 on veneers for his teeth”; and was “sporting [his] exclusive Moncler jacket” that cost £2,000. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the complainant denied he had been to Dubai, denied that he had veneers and had spent that amount of money on dental work, and denied that he owned a Moncler jacket.

18. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

19. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column. As the inaccuracy had appeared on page 5, the correction should appear on page 5 or further forward.

20. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 20/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/09/2024