05130-25 Moshelian v The National

Summary of Complaint

1. Michelle Moshelian complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The National breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a reader’s letter titled “When will autocrat Trump be treated as such?”, published on 16 October 2025.

2. The letter – which appeared on page 26, on the newspaper’s letters page – focused on western governments’ perception of Donald Trump. It said: “During his much-vaunted (by himself obviously) ceasefire deal for Gaza – a territory the US/UK helped raze to the ground by providing war criminal Netanyahu with the hardware – more Palestinian civilians and a Palestinian journalist were shot by the Israel Defence Forces.”

3. The letter also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline, “When will dictator autocrat Donald Trump be treated as such?”

4. The complainant said that the letter was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it said a “Palestinian journalist” had been “shot by the Israel Defence Forces.” She said the “journalist” had not been killed by the IDF, and noted the publication had reported the actual circumstances of his death on 14 October, reporting that he had been “shot dead by members of an armed militia, the Doghmush clan,” during clashes in Gaza City.

5. The complainant also said the individual who had been killed was not an independent journalist: multiple Palestinian sources, including local media and Hamas-linked Telegram channels, had said he was affiliated with Hamas media operations. She said referring to him as a neutral “journalist” misled readers about the nature of the incident.

6. The complainant also said the reference “more Palestinian civilians” being shot by the IDF during the ceasefire period was misleading by omission. She said the overwhelming majority of Palestinian casualties were caused by intra-Palestinian violence, including armed clashes between rival factions. She said the letter did not mention this, which created a distorted impression that the IDF was the primary source of violence.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. To support its position, it provided a list from Wikipedia, of journalists killed by Israeli airstrikes and forces following the ceasefire announcement. It further noted the letter did not include a specific date – it said the killing had occurred “[d]uring his much-vaunted ceasefire deal". Therefore, it was not clear which journalist was being referred to, and if the letter was inaccurate in the way contended by the complainant. It said it was satisfied journalists were regularly being killed by Israel around the period of the ceasefire talks and agreement, and gave an example of a Palestinian journalist who had been killed by Israel around that time.

8. The complainant said that the additional journalist the publication had referenced had been killed after the letter was published – therefore, the letter could not have been referring to him. The complainant said the only journalist on the list provided by the newspaper – whose death had occurred prior to the letter’s publication and after the ceasefire began - was “Killed by the Palestinian Doghmush clan while reporting clashes between the group and Hamas fighters”.

9. While the publication did not accept that the letter breached the Code, 23 days after it was made aware of the complaint, it offered to publish the following in print – in its regular corrections box – and online as a footnote to the letter:

“A letter on October 16 referenced a journalist being shot by the IDF. To be clear, evidence suggests that Saleh al-Jafarawi, who this may have been taken in reference to, was killed by the Doghmush clan, which Hamas accuses of working with Israel. The UN human rights office believes that almost 248 journalists have been killed in Gaza.”

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 appreciated that the disputed claim appeared within a reader’s letter. However, it did not follow that – simply because the claim appeared within a reader’s letter – that it was a matter of opinion. The Committee considered that the claim that, “[d]uring [the ceasefire deal for Gaza […] a Palestinian journalist was shot by the Israel Defence Forces” was a statement of fact.

11. The list the publication had provided confirmed there was only one journalist that had been killed in the period between the ceasefire announcement and the letter’s publication. This list supported the complainant’s position that no journalist had been killed by the IDF in the relevant time period, and that the letter was inaccurate to report – at the time of publication – that, “[d]uring [the ceasefire deal for Gaza […] a Palestinian journalist was shot by the Israel Defence Forces.”

12. Given the claim made in the letter contradicted the publication’s own reporting, and where the publication had not set out what steps it had taken to verify the accuracy of the claim, the newspaper had not taken sufficient care to check this claim of fact within the letter. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

13. The next question for the Committee was whether this claim was significantly inaccurate and in need of correction according to the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that reporting accurately on who was responsible for a journalist’s death in the context of a high-profile and contentious conflict was a matter of public interest. Therefore, the inaccuracy was significantly inaccurate and required correction.

14. The Committee next considered whether the correction offered by the newspaper was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee considered the wording of the proposed correction to be sufficient to correct the record: it acknowledged the original inaccuracy, and set out the correct position, which was that, evidence suggested the journalist had been killed by the Doghmush clan.

15. The publication had offered to publish the correction in its Corrections box in print, and as a footnote to the online letter. The Committee considered the placement of the print correction to be sufficiently prominent: the Corrections box in the print edition would be where readers could expect to find corrections.

16. Turning to the online correction, the Committee was content that in the context of a reader’s letter, a footnote correction was sufficiently prominent where the inaccuracy appeared briefly in the context of a reader’s letter.

17. However, the corrections were offered 23 days after the publication was made aware of the inaccuracy. The Committee did not consider this was sufficiently prompt where the correct position was known to the publication ahead of the letter’s publication, as it had been referenced in the newspaper’s earlier reporting. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the promptness of the publication’s proposed correction.

18. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to refer to the journalist as such, without making clear that sources had indicated he had links to Hamas and was not independent. The Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the individual was a journalist and that he had appeared in a list of journalists who had been killed in the conflict. In such circumstances, referring to him as a “journalist” was not inaccurate, and the publication was not required to report the journalist’s alleged affiliation to Hamas to ensure that the reader’s letter did not breach the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The Committee noted that the complainant accepted that the IDF did kill a number of Palestinians during this time. Where the letter was focusing on the deaths caused by the IDF, it was not therefore inaccurate to omit the number of Palestinian casualties caused by Palestinians. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

21. 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 and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

22. The Committee considered that the letter included a significant inaccuracy, where it claimed that a journalist had been shot by the IDF during the ceasefire. However, given this formed a brief reference in the letter, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the named journalist was not shot by the IDF, and that he was in fact killed by the Palestinian Doghmush clan.

23. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections box on the letter’s page of its print edition. As the letter also appeared online, the correction should be published as a footnote to the original letter. The Committee considered this duly prominent where the inaccuracy formed a brief reference in a reader’s letter.

24. The wording of both corrections 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: 18/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/02/2026