05708-24 Mézec v Jersey Evening Post

Summary of Complaint

1. Sam Mézec complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Jersey Evening Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The editor's week...Still in Red Coventry”, published on 28 September 2024.

2. The article, which appeared in “The Editors’ Week” section of the newspaper, reported on comments attributed to the newspaper’s editor that, “[s]everal weeks ago, I told you that Deputy Mézec had thrown his toys out of his pram and was refusing to speak to the JEP, despite being a minister”. It went on to provide “an update” – that the complainant “is still boycotting us, or rather the paper, because of me” and that, “[w]hat we do get is him telling JEP reporters that I’m a liar and untrustworthy and suggesting I am childish, an irresponsible purveyor of hate”.

3. On 23 September, prior to the article’s publication a reporter from the publication sent the complainant the following WhatsApp messages:

“Hi Sam, […] here with the JEP. I’m just writing about the new launch of the first step scheme for tomorrow’s paper – would I be able to get a comment from you about the continued funding of the scheme?

Are you still choosing not to speak with the JEP? Just a heads up that the editor will want to mention your decision not to comment, sorry – could you tell us why?”

The complainant responded on the same day with the following WhatsApp message:

“Hi […].

Sorry you are getting drawn into this. I know it’s not the fault of most of the people at the JEP that this animosity exists and I’m sorry that it makes your job harder.

The main reason I’ve not engaged with the JEP recently was because of my last interaction with the editor. I complained to IPSO when he lied about me in one of his columns. He offered a retraction before the final part of the IPSO process would

proceed otherwise. In my dialogue with him I asked if he would commit to not embellishing future articles about me with falsehoods. He replied with a one world email saying ‘no’.

I just don’t know how I’m meant to engage in good faith with an organisation whose leader won’t offer to reassure me that he won’t lie about me. That’s a pretty fundamental issue. And if he wants to comment on it and leave out this crucial part of

the story then it will just end up in front of IPSO again.

How can we get around this?”

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that he had told the publication’s “reporters” that the editor was “a liar and untrustworthy and suggesting I am childish, an irresponsible purveyor of hate”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as he had only had one interaction with a reporter from the publication – which consisted of one WhatsApp message on 23 September - in which he explained why he would not engage with the publication further. He said he had not told multiple reporters that the editor was “a liar” and “untrustworthy”, as he said the article alleged. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as he believed it was framed in a manner that suggested he subjected multiple people, who worked for the publication, “to a sustained barrage of insults about their boss”. He also said it inaccurately suggested that this article was “an update” to a previous article the publication had published.

5. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported he had told JEP reporters, plural, that the editor was “a liar and untrustworthy” and that he had suggested the editor was “childish” and an “irresponsible purveyor of hate”. The complainant said this portrayed a false impression of his engagements with the publication and his character.

6. The complainant acknowledged that his WhatsApp message, quoted above, “essentially called [the Editor a] liar” and this therefore, did not form part of his complaint. He said that he did not say the editor was untrustworthy or childish and that he did not describe him as a “purveyor of hate”.

7. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had spoken to the publication’s “reporters”, plural. It said that the complainant had told a number of the publication’s journalists that he did not want to speak to its reporters. To support its position on this point, it provided email correspondence between the complainant and two of its reporters; these were dated 27 October 2023 and 23 April 2024.

8. The publication provided IPSO with the emails in question. The first email chain read as follows:

“Good afternoon Deputy,

Hope you’re doing well.

I’m just emailing because of your tweets calling for a ceasefire. I was wondering if you would be able to speak to me about what you want to see from Jersey, and why you think this hasn’t happened yet?

Ideally it would be great to get before the weekend, and I’m happy to speak on the phone or if you wanted to email your thoughts.

Thanks so much”

The complainant responded on the same day with the following email:

“Hi […],

I apologise to you (as this isn’t your fault at all) but this is not a subject I am prepared to speak to the JEP about.

A few years ago when I led an event on the subject of Israel/Palestine, [the Editor] used it as an opportunity to use the paper to platform extremists to accuse me of very specific claims of anti-semitism at the event, none of which were true and

were promoted by people who didn’t even attend it. I can’t have any confidence he won’t just do the same again this time.

Unfortunately, [the editor] frequently does this sort of thing, alienating potential sources and making the job of hard working journalists like yourself more difficult. I am sorry that this is the case, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

Kind regards,

Sam”

9. The second email chain read:

“Dear Sam

We’re getting an article together on this – is it something you’d have a couple of minutes to talk through this afternoon, please?

Thanks”

The complainant responded on the same day with the following email:

“Hi […],

Apologies, but I am not engaging with the JEP at this time. This time it is due to the promotion of dangerous transphobic tropes in the JEP on the weekend. I know that’s not your fault, so sorry for the difficulty it causes you.

Kind regards,

Sam”

10. The publication also said it was not inaccurate to report that the complainant had told its reporters that the editor was “untrustworthy”, or that he had “suggest[ed]” that the editor was “childish” and “an irresponsible purveyor of hate”. The publication said the editor considered it was “reasonable and accurate to surmise that the complainant thought the editor was a “‘purveyor of hate’” given the publication had previously published ‘comment’ articles which it said the complainant found offensive as they focused on matters such as: “transgender-related issues [and] same-sex parenting”.

11. The complainant acknowledged the additional emails provided by the publication but did not consider they were relevant to the timeframe which the article said it focused on, given it was portrayed as an “update” to its previous reporting. The complainant said he had frequently engaged with reporters from the publication prior to 25 May 2024 but declined to engage with the publication on the two occasions that the emails referred to.

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. The Committee considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant had told multiple JEP reporters that the Editor was “a liar and untrustworthy” and had “suggest[ed]” he was “childish, an irresponsible purveyor of hate”. The Committee first noted that the complainant accepted that his WhatsApp message, sent to a reporter at the publication, effectively referred to the editor as a liar and, therefore, that this did not form part of the complainant’s complaint. With regard to the other references which were in issue, it also noted that the complainant referred to the reasons he did not wish to engage with the publication further, namely that it was “due to the promotion of dangerous transphobic tropes in the JEP” and because the editor had previously “use[d] the paper to platform extremists to accuse [the complainant] of very specific claims of anti-semitism at the event, none of which were true”. These were in emails sent to two reporters working for the newspapers, to explain why he would not be providing responses to requests for comment. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the reference to the complainant having raised concerns with multiple “reporters” about the editor was inaccurate.

13. Given that the piece appeared in “The Editors’ Week” section of the newspaper, the Committee noted that the references in issue were clearly presented as the editor’s characterisation of the complainant’s position, rather than purporting to be a direct quote of the precise words the complainant had used for explaining his unwillingness to engage. As such, and taking the above factors into account, the Committee did not consider that this was an inaccurate or misleading summary of the complainant’s view of the editor, as it had been expressed to the editor and staff working at the newspaper. For the reasons explained in the previous paragraph, the Committee considered there was a sufficient factual basis to support this characterisation and there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A

Date complaint received: 28/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/10/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer found that the IPSO process was flawed, as the Committee made a finding on a point which did not form part of the complaint made. The complaint was therefore returned to the Committee so that it could reconsider this part of its decision, and the Committee issued an amended ruling.