05034-24 Bliss v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Steven Bliss complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “BBC ordered to investigate claims of antisemitism”, published on 2 August 2024.

2. The article reported on an open letter sent to the BBC. It opened by reporting:

“A group of more than 200 people including Luciana Berger, the former Labour MP, and Anita Land, the sister of the Ofcom chair Lord Grade of Yarmouth, have demanded that the BBC open an urgent investigation into allegations of antisemitism. In a letter to the BBC board sent last month, the predominantly Jewish signatories from the film and TV industry said they were in ‘anguish and disbelief’ that the corporation had not dealt with complaints about biased coverage and social media breaches during the Israel-Hamas war. The group included Danny Cohen, a former BBC1 controller, and Leo Pearlman, co-founder of James Corden’s Fulwell 73 production company, as well as 112 people who signed anonymously because many work for the BBC”.  

3. The article included extracts from the letter: “We can vouch with certainty that there is a loss of faith in the BBC within our community and a widespread opinion that, when it comes to racism and discrimination at the BBC, Jews don’t count […] We are certain that were similar incidents to occur at the expense of any other minority, the BBC would show zero tolerance.” The article also reported that the letter-writers “called for a formal investigation by the board into ‘systemic problems of antisemitism and bias’”.

4. The article also appeared online, published on the same day, under the headline: “More than 200 people in film and TV urge BBC to investigate antisemitism”.

5. The complainant said the headline of the print version of the article breached Clause 1 because it was inaccurate and unsupported by the text of the article. He said this was the case as the headline used the term “ordered” – he said the individuals who had written the letter had asked the BBC to investigate claims of antisemitism, and they had no authority to “order” the BBC to do so. The complainant stated that many readers may not read the article itself – and that if they were to just read the headline, they would be misled into thinking that an official body had ordered the BBC to investigate claims of antisemitism.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It stated that, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the meanings of the verb “order” include “to bid, command, direct, prescribe” – and that the suggestion that the term “order” requires a degree of power or authority was the complainant’s own interpretation. In any event, it added that the first sentence of the article made perfectly clear that a number of individuals had written to the BBC to demand an investigation.

7. The publication also said that it considered the term “ordered” captured the strength of feeling in the letter and the implicit threat that a failure to act would have consequences, given that many signatories had influence in the industry, or worked for the BBC.

8. In response, the complainant stated that the term “demanded”, in the first sentence of the article, was an “overstatement”. He said that “demand” tends to mean someone claiming something as a right – which was not the case here. He also objected to the definition of the verb “order” put forward by the publication, as he considered that the dictionary the publication had used for this definition was a historical dictionary, which was not always the best guide on current usage. He also said that the signatories did not have the power to “command”, “direct”, or “prescribe” the BBC to act.

9. The complainant put forward other dictionary definitions of “order”, all of which he said require some form of power or authority. These were: “give an authoritative instruction to do something”; “an official instruction telling someone what they can or cannot do”; and “a person in authority orders someone to do something’ and ‘gives instructions that it should be done”.

10. The complainant also added that, in his view, the decision to use the term “order” had been done to promote the publication’s own political views.

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

11. The Committee noted the importance of headlines, given their prominence and visibility, and potential to mislead readers. At the same time, the Committee also noted that a headline can only ever be a summary of the information reported, and the obligation under Clause 1 of the Code is to ensure that a headline is not distorted, misleading, or inaccurate, and is supported by the text of the accompanying article.

12. The headline read: “BBC ordered to investigate claims of antisemitism”. The article opened by reporting that a group of more than 200 people had written to the BBC calling for it to “open an urgent investigation into allegations of antisemitism”. The Committee considered, therefore, that the article immediately made clear the details of the “order” – it was an open letter, sent from a number of prominent individuals in the industry, demanding a formal investigation. This was reinforced throughout the article, which included extracts from the letter itself.

13. The complainant contended that the headline of the article was inaccurate because the term “order” required some form of power or authority – and the signatories of the letter, in the complainant’s view, did not have the power or authority over the BBC to compel it to act. While the Committee appreciated the complainant’s position, it recognised that the term “order” can be interpreted in various ways – indeed, both parties had supplied differing definitions. Where the article made clear that a number of prominent industry individuals had demanded the BBC open an investigation, the Committee considered that the article made clear its basis for describing this as an “order” – and when reading the headline in conjunction with the article, therefore, the Committee did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading, or unsupported by the article’s text. There was no breach of Clause 1.

14. The Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that the choice of the word “order” was done to promote the publication’s political views. The Committee recognised that, under the Editors’ Code, newspaper have the right to be partisan, provided they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Where the Committee did not consider the use of “ordered” to be inaccurate or misleading, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

16. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/10/2024

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.