04263-24 Belcher v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Joe Belcher complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Green Party election candidate claimed Islamic State was run by Mossad, attacked 'Jew lovers' and claimed a mural showing 'hook-nosed Jewish bankers' playing Monopoly off the backs of the poor was 'not anti-Semitic'”, published on 29 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on the complainant’s posts on the social media site X. The article reported that the complainant – who was a Green Party candidate in the then-upcoming general election – was “mired in an anti-Semitism row today over social media posts blasting 'Jew lovers' and claiming the Islamic State terrorist group was run by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad”.

3. Pictured within the article was an X post which appeared alongside the caption: “he also branded someone a ‘Jew <3’ – online shorthand for a ‘Jew lover’, a well-known derogatory term”. The picture showed the complainant responding to an X post from another user – which said, “some antisemitism for you”, and was accompanied by five of the complainant’s X posts. One of the X posts read: “this jew <3 letting the world know our concern for the evil Zionist group that works against us”. The complainant’s response was: “nothing antisemitic there. Just sharing content. What is it about the content that you have a problem with to such an extent you would call it antisemitic?”

4. The article also reported that the Green Party had told the publication “‘allegations of anti-Semitism will always be carefully considered using [its] robust internal disciplinary procedures’”.

5. On 28 May, at 4:10pm - one day prior to the article’s publication - the publication sent the following email to the Green Party Press Office and the complainant:

“Good afternoon, I am getting in touch seeking a response/right of reply for a story we are planning to run.

We have uncovered a series of social media posts from Joe Belcher, your candidate in Aldridge-Brownhills.

They include

• Sharing content suggesting Islamic State is run by a Mossad agent…

• Voicing the opinion that a widely-criticised mural in London did not show ‘hook-nosed Jewish bankers’ and was not anti-Semitic.

• Describing someone as a ‘jew <3’ aka a ‘Jew lover’, a well-known derogatory term. Images of the posts are in the attached file I am planning to run a piece on this tomorrow, so happy to run any comment or explanation for the posts you wish to put forward. And whether or not the party is happy for him to remain a candidate”.

6. The complainant did not respond to the email.

7. The complainant said the article reported, in breach of Clause 1, that he “[wa]s mired in an anti-Semitism row today over social media posts blasting 'Jew lovers'”. He said this was inaccurate as his social media post – which included the words “this jew <3” - was posted in support of a Jewish Rabbi who was speaking out against policies of the Israeli government. The complainant said the love heart he included in the social media post was “a sign of love and/or appreciation” and that this had been misinterpreted by the publication.

8. The publication did not accept the article was significantly inaccurate. It said that the phrase 'Jew <3' had come to be used as an online shorthand for the phrase 'Jew Lover' – which it said was intended to be derogatory towards someone who had been “sympathetic to Jewish people and issues”. It also said that, given the context in which the phrase appeared – reporting on the post of another X user who alleged that some of the complainant’s social media posts were antisemitic –it was reasonable for the reporter to attribute the meaning of ‘Jew lover’ to the phrase used by the complainant in his social media post. The publication noted that the complainant did not deny publishing other social media posts which it said had been “denounced as anti-Semitic tropes”. Therefore, it did not consider the difference in opinion over the perceived meaning of a single social media post had a significant effect on the overall focus of the article - that the complainant was involved in an antisemitism row. It said that, with or without the disputed post, the point being made by the article – that the complainant was “mired in an anti-Semitism row today over social media posts” – was correct.

9. The publication also said that it gave the complainant the opportunity to respond to the allegation and to clarify the meaning of the social media post in dispute: It contacted the Green Party and the complainant for comment approximately twenty hours prior to the article’s publication, which it said was a sufficient amount of time for the complainant to provide his position. The publication said the complainant did not respond to the request for comment and that the Green Party’s response was included in the article.

10. The publication also noted that, when a member of the public responded to the disputed social media post and called it antisemitic, the complainant did not clarify that his intended meaning was one of love and appreciation. Rather, he said “nothing antisemitic there. Just sharing content. What is it about the content that you have a problem with to such an extent you would call it antisemitic?”

11. Notwithstanding the above, the publication removed all references to the disputed X post from the article on 8 July. On the same day it also offered to publish the following clarification, both as a standalone correction and as a footnote to the article:

“On 29 May we published an article which included claims that Joe Belcher, then a Green Party election candidate, had become involved in online arguments about alleged anti-Semitic content he had published, which included the derogatory phrase 'Jew lover'. We have since been contacted by Mr Belcher who says that the specific wording used - 'Jew <3' was not intended to denote the word 'lover' but rather a sign of admiration for the Jewish person he was writing about. We are happy to make this clear and have amended the article accordingly”.

12. The complainant did not accept the proposed correction as a resolution to his complaint.

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

13. The Committee first considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant was “mired in an anti-Semitism row today over social media posts blasting 'Jew lovers'”. The complainant said that he had used the phrase as a “sign of love and appreciation” rather than in a derogatory manner, as alleged by the other X user. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s social media posts had led to an “anti-Semitism row”. However, in light of the seriousness of the claim being made – that the complainant’s tweet could be interpreted as being antisemitic –the omission of the complainant’s position that his post was not “blasting ‘Jew lovers’ had the potential to be misleading if the impression given was that he did not dispute the allegation that his posts were antisemitic.

14. Clause 1 (i) requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate information and the Committee, therefore, considered the steps taken by the newspaper, prior to the article’s publication, to comply with this requirement. It noted that the publication had approached the complainant and the Green Party for comment, and specifically asked about the social media post in which the complainant “described someone as a ‘jew <3’ aka a ‘Jew lover’, a well-known derogatory term”. The Committee noted that the complainant did not respond to the publication to challenge this interpretation of the post. Given the publication had put the specific claim to both the complainant and the Green Party the day prior to the article’s publication, the Committee considered that due care had been taken to ensure that the article was not misleading on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

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

16. In considering whether the article was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report that the complainant “[wa]s mired in an anti-Semitism row today over social media posts blasting 'Jew lovers'”, the Committee had regard for the article as a whole. The article focused on the criticism which had been made of the complainant’s social media posts, in which the publication said he had expressed “extreme views”, and the article did not include the complainant’s position that his use of the phrase “jew <3” was meant in a positive manner.

17. The complainant did not dispute that he had posted the post on X, nor did he complain that the article had inaccurately reported on the remainder of the tweets referenced in the article – which the publication accurately reported had been criticised by another X user as being allegedly antisemitic. The Committee also noted that the full text of the post in dispute was included in the article so that readers could reach their own view on the meaning of the post, and that it also included the complainant’s response that there was, “nothing antisemitic there”. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the omission of the complainant’s intended meaning of one of the posts rendered the article significantly inaccurate or misleading. As such, a correction was not required – however, the Committee welcomed the steps the publication had taken to address the complainant’s concern and the offer it had made to clarify his position in relation to the post in issue.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

19. N/A

Date complaint received: 12/06/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/02/2025