06207-25 Moshelian v The National

Summary of Complaint

1. Michelle Moshelian complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The National breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Call to ‘take stand’ against gig by pro-Israel band”, published on October 24 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 10, reported that pro-Palestine campaigners had criticised a music venue in Glasgow for hosting an upcoming gig. The article reported:

“Metal band Disturbed is scheduled to play the OVO Hydro on Tuesday, but the band has been widely criticised for its pro-Israel stance, with frontman David Draiman previously signing Israeli missiles. The group had a recent concert in Belgium cancelled due to their endorsement of Israel and more than 1000 campaigners urged both First Minister John Swinney and the Glasgow venue’s management to ‘take a stand’.”

3. It went on to report:

“A spokesperson for Show Israeli Genocide The Red Card said: ‘Despite raising our concerns months ago, we are yet to hear from the Hydro’s management. As for the response received from the First Minister’s office, it is tepid and fails to acknowledge the gravity of a pro-Israel band, whose lead member, David Draiman, has posed with Israel’s occupation force and proudly shared images of himself signing bombs destined to kill men, women and children in Gaza.’

4. It further reported:

“Scotland for Palestine accused Swinney of displaying ‘blatant double standards’, referencing calls he made for rap trio Kneecap to be axed from this year’s TRNSMT festival in Glasgow. A spokesperson for the group added: ‘If John Swinney really wanted to convince people he cared for the plight of Palestinians, then he would put words into action and call for Disturbed’s concert to be cancelled. Just as he did for Kneecap.’”

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “Scottish venue urged to 'take a stand' against Disturbed's Glasgow gig”. The online version reported that Kneecap had been “dropped” from a music festival “over ‘policing concerns’”.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that Disturbed “had a recent concert in Belgium cancelled due to their endorsement of Israel”. She said that the concert had instead been cancelled due to security concerns stemming from anticipated protests. She noted that this had been reported in the Belgian and international press.

7. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that David Draiman had “’proudly shared images of himself signing bombs destined to kill men, women and children in Gaza.’” She said that Mr Draiman had signed artillery shells during a visit to Israel, but that it was misleading to present this as direct endorsement of civilian casualties, as bombs are intended to target combatants.

8. She also said the article was inaccurate where it omitted to mention that – at the time that John Swinney made calls for Kneecap to be removed from the music festival line-up – the group had been charged with supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. The complainant said that, by omitting this information, the article gave readers the misleading impression that the calls for Kneecap and Disturbed’s performances in Glasgow to be cancelled were legally and morally comparable.

9. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to refer to Scotland For Palestine as a “pro-Palestine” group. She said that while the term was broadly accurate, it was misleading as the group was engaged in anti-Israel protest and cultural boycott activism.

10. The complainant added that the article was misleading, as it consisted primarily of quotes from activist groups without offering clarification from the band or independent sources. She said this meant the article was not balanced.

11. The publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 1. It said that its basis for reporting that the concert in Belgium was cancelled “due to [Disturbed’s] endorsement of Israel” was that Disturbed’s endorsement had led to protests in Forest against the concert, which in turn had led to its cancellation on safety grounds. It added that, if the article had been focused on the incident in Belgium, it would have included much more detail, but as such it had distilled the events leading up to the cancellation into a shorter, but nonetheless accurate, narrative. For these reasons, the publication did not propose to publish a correction. However, it said that the complainant would be welcome to submit a letter for publication.

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 noted it was not in dispute that safety concerns around protests in response to Disturbed’s support of Israel had been cited as the primary reason for cancelling the band’s concert there. However, the Committee considered that there was a material distinction between the concert being cancelled because of the band’s support for Israel – as the article suggested – as opposed to the concert being cancelled due to safety concerns around protests; this suggested, in a misleading manner, that the motivating factor for the cancellation had been the band’s political beliefs rather than safety concerns. . The Committee considered that when writing the article, the publication had not taken due care not to publish inaccurate, distorted or misleading information in this regard. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

13. Given the political sensitivity of the decision to cancel the gig in Belgium, and the context of the inaccuracy having appeared in an article about calls for the band’s Glasgow gig to also be cancelled, the Committee considered that this was a significant inaccuracy, which therefore required correction. No correction was offered, and therefore there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

14. The Committee then turned to whether it was inaccurate to report that a band member had “’proudly shared images of himself signing bombs destined to kill men, women and children in Gaza.’”. The Committee first noted that it was not in dispute that the band member had signed artillery shells during a visit to Israel. Given this, and where this claim appeared in the context of a statement from Show Israeli Genocide the Red Card, it had been distinguished as the campaign group’s view of the band member’s actions, for which there was a factual basis – the fact that the band member had signed artillery shells. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

15. The Committee considered that, where the article made clear that it was Scotland for Palestine’s position that the calls for Kneecap to be removed from a festival bill and for Disturbed’s concert to be cancelled were comparable, omitting to mention the charges against Kneecap did not make the article inaccurate in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The complainant had acknowledged that it was broadly accurate to refer to Scotland For Palestine as a “pro-Palestine group”. The Committee understood that the complainant may have her own preferred descriptors for the group’s type of activism. However, where the group’s purpose appeared to be to demonstrate support for Palestine – and this was not in dispute - it was not inaccurate to refer to it as “pro-Palestine”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee turned to the complainant’s position that the article was misleading, as it consisted primarily of statements from activist groups and was therefore not balanced. It noted that publications have the right to be partisan, and therefore the Editors’ Code does not specify that articles must be balanced. Furthermore, newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. In this case, omitting to include statements from groups or individuals with different opinions about the concert did not make the article inaccurate or misleading, where the focus of the article was that several activist groups had called for the concert to be cancelled. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

19. Having partially 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.

20. The Committee considered that the text of the article was significantly inaccurate because it gave readers the impression a concert in Belgium had been cancelled because of a band’s support for Israel. However, it noted that the article gave further context to the cancellation where it reported that “the band had been widely criticised for its pro-Israel stance”. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it was inaccurate to report that the band “had a recent concert in Belgium cancelled due to their endorsement of Israel”. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the reason given for the concert’s cancellation was safety concerns stemming from protests in response to the band’s support for Israel.

21. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

22. The print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications box on its letters page, as this is where readers would expect to find corrections.

23. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

24. The wording 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: 29/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/03/2026

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.