02912-25 Various v Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. The Independent Press Standards Organisation received various complaints that Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “NOW ARREST PUNK BAND WHO LED ‘DEATH TO ISRAELIS’ CHANTS AT GLASTONBURY”, published on 26 June 2025.

2. IPSO received 123 complaints about the article. In light of the volume of complaints received, and where the specific input of a complainant was not necessary, IPSO summarised the complaints for the purpose of investigating the complaint.  

3. The article, which appeared on the front page and continued on pages 4 and 5, reported on criticisms of the BBC and its coverage of Glastonbury festival. The full front-page headline was: “Tel Aviv blasts BBC for failing to cut hour-long live broadcast of vile outburst as police face demands... Now arrest punk band who led ‘death to Israelis’ chants at Glastonbury”. The text of the article began on the front page: “The BBC and Glastonbury provoked outrage last night when a pro-Palestine punk act called for the death of Israeli soldiers during a live broadcast from the festival. In appalling scenes condemned by the British and Israeli governments, the lead singer of the duo Bob Vylan led a crowd of thousands in a vile chant of ‘death, death to the IDF’ – the Israel Defence Forces.” Continuing on the front page, it reported “The singer, who keeps his identity secret, also led a chant of ‘free, free Palestine’, and declared ‘from the river to the sea Palestine… will be free’ – regarded by many in the Jewish community as a call for Israel’s elimination.”

4. Complainants said that the headline was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that the band “led ‘death to Israelis’” chants at the festival. They said this was inaccurate and misleading, as the chant the band led was actually “death, death to the IDF”.

5. Complainants also said that, as the words ‘death to Israelis’ were presented in single quotation marks in the headline, this gave readers the impression that it was a direct quote from the band. Complainants said the headline was not supported by - and was in fact contradicted by - the text of the article, which set out the actual chant.

6. Complainants also said that “death to” was a figure of speech used in protest against organisations, rather than an incitement to harm individuals. They said that there was a material difference between calling for the ‘death’ of an institution, as opposed to people of a particular nationality. Some complainants said this was significantly inaccurate and misleading as it gave the impression that Bob Vylan’s chant had targeted Israelis in general, rather than the IDF as an institution.

7. The publication did not accept that the headline was inaccurate or misleading, or that the Code to be breached. It said the headline’s reference to the chant - “’Death to Israelis’” - was not a direct quote, but a summary of the chants and comments made by the band whilst on stage. It said this summary was supported by text of the article and the wider context behind the performance. It said it was entitled to use editorialised paraphrasing in headlines, and that this was not misleading.

8. The publication said that its headline summary accurately reflected the meaning of the chant “Death to the IDF”, and that the band had not disputed its interpretation of the meaning behind the chant. It noted that, one month prior to the Glastonbury performance reported, the band had said on stage “death to every single IDF soldier out there”. The publication said that, in light of this, the chant “Death to the IDF” could be understood as calling for the murder of individual Israeli citizens, rather than calling for the ‘death’ of the IDF as an institution – as contended by the complainants. The publication said the band’s chant should also be understood in the context of other comments, made by the singer, during the same performance: he had led chants of “from the River to the Sea”, which is widely condemned as advocating for the destruction of the Israeli state, and that he had spoken about “Zionist” control in the music industry and “genocide” perpetrated by the Israeli state.

9. The publication noted that Israel has compulsory conscription for 18-year-olds, and compulsory reserve duty for all Jewish citizens up to the age of 40. It said therefore any incitement aimed at Israel’s armed forces would logically extend to the vast majority of its adult Jewish population. It said it was for these reasons that the chant had been widely condemned as anti-Semitic hate speech and prompted a police investigation. It said the article clearly supported the headline’s characterisation of the chant as that this was how it was widely interpreted, including by sources quoted in the article as critical of the BBC and the band - such as Israel’s deputy foreign minister, and the Leader of the Opposition.

10. The publication said that since the article had been published, it has become widely accepted that the chant was aimed at Israelis. It referenced comments made by the Culture Secretary in Parliament:

“There was something particularly pernicious about chanting, ‘Death, death to the IDF’. Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means that chanting ‘death to the IDF’ is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew. That is one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.”

11. It said this interpretation of the chant was also supported by the United Kingdom’s Chief Rabbi, who said:

“Israel has a conscript army. Every 18-year-old is called to serve — Jews, Christians, Muslims — and serve they do. Because they know that the country faces enemies whose stated intention is to wipe out the Jewish state and all its inhabitants. Consequently, without such service by the population at large on behalf of the entire country, Israel would not exist. And so, calling for ‘Death to the IDF’ is a call to kill the vast majority of the population of Israel. It is effectively a call for the death of the world’s only Jewish state. What could be more hateful to Jews than that?”

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

12. Single quotation marks in headlines can be used in different ways, including to present verbatim comments, and to reference a characterisation or summary of an individual’s position. In this instance, the publication’s position was that it had been using the single quotation marks to summarise chants and comments made by the band whilst on stage. The complainants did not accept this, interpreting the phrase “’DEATH TO ISRAELIS’” in the headline as implying that this was a direct quotation, when in fact this phrase had not been used.

13. Where quotation marks are used to signal paraphrasing, the words inside single quotation marks may differ somewhat from the exact words spoken, but providing that the coverage makes clear the words spoken; and that the summary contained within the quotation marks is not misleading or a distortion of what was said, this is not in and of itself inaccurate. The questions for the Committee in this case were therefore: first, whether the coverage taken as a whole, made clear what was said from the stage at Glastonbury; and second, whether the publication had failed to take care over accuracy in summarising the words spoken in the way that it had.

14. The Committee noted that the headline referred to plural “chants”, and that the text of the article, on the front page, specified that Bob Vylan had led chants of “’death, death to the IDF’”, “’free, free Palestine’”, and “’from the River to the sea Palestine… will be free’”, which it reported is “regarded by many in the Jewish community as a call for Israel’s elimination.” The Committee considered that the coverage had included a clear and prominent explanation of the precise words that had been spoken. The accuracy of this aspect of the report was not in dispute. The Committee found that the article was not misleading on this point.

15. The Committee next considered whether the publication had failed to take care over accuracy or published misleading or distorted information when it summarised the chants with the phrase “’DEATH TO ISRAELIS”.

16. The Committee acknowledged that this is a sensitive and controversial topic and emphasised that its remit was only to apply the terms of the Editors’ Code rather than to adopt a position on these wider matters. However, the publication was entitled to hold and express such a view. It had explained the basis of its position that “Death to Israelis” was an accurate summary, which included its understanding of the relationship between Israeli society and the IDF, and the meanings it attributed to the various chants heard at the concert. While recognising that these interpretations are heavily disputed, in circumstances where the full chants were included on the front page of the article, and recognising the publication’s entitlement to set out its own interpretation of the chants, the Committee considered that the publication had provided an adequate basis for this characterisation. It did not establish that the headline was inaccurate or misleading, or unsupported by the article’s text. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

18. N/A

Date complaint received: 29/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/10/2025