06653-25 Moore v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Charlotte Moore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “BBC boss handed OBE despite being blamed for discredited Gaza film”, published on 30 December 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page four - reported that the complainant who “bore much of the blame for the Gaza documentary has been given an OBE in the New Year Honours List.” The sub-headline said: “Charlotte Moore’s award among several in Honours List that could be accused of rewarding failure”. It then reported that the complainant “was the BBC’s chief content officer when the programme, which it emerged was narrated by the 13-year-old son of a Hamas official, was broadcast in February”.

3. The article explained that a “group of 45 prominent Jewish journalists and members of the media wrote to Ms Moore, Tim Davie, the director-general, and Deborah Turness, the BBC News chief executive, demanding to know why the broadcaster had failed to discover the narrator’s background”.

4. It said that others who had been recognised in the New Year Honours List included a senior police officer, who had “accused of ‘losing the plot’ and being ‘obsessed by race’ earlier this year when The Telegraph revealed that he had intervened to ensure that an ethnic minority candidate who failed her interview was hired regardless.

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “BBC boss blamed for discredited Gaza documentary handed OBE”. This version was published on 29 December 2025 and included the sub-headline “Charlotte Moore’s place on New Year Honour List adds to growing concern over ‘rewards for failure’”.

6. The complainant contacted the newspaper on 30 December and said the article inaccurately reported that she had been blamed for the Gaza documentary. She said the programme did not fall under her remit and requested that the article be amended and a correction published.

7. On the same day, the publication confirmed it had removed the word “blamed” from the online version of the article, and replaced it with “criticised over”. It said the complainant had faced criticism about the documentary, including a letter signed by numerous concerned individuals to the BBC’s Director General at the time and others – the contents of which was widely reported.

8. While it did not accept a breach of the Code, it added the following wording to the bottom of the online version of the article:

“An earlier version of this article described Charlotte Moore as having been ‘blamed’ for the BBC’s documentary “Gaza: How to survive a war zone”. Whilst Ms Moore faced criticism at the outset of the controversy surrounding the film, in fact she had no involvement in commissioning or overseeing the production. We are happy to correct the record.”

9. It also confirmed it had published a substantively similar online standalone correction, which appeared in its online corrections and clarifications column. This column was linked to on the bottom of its homepage.

10. A substantively similar correction also appeared in the newspaper’s print edition, in its regular Corrections and Clarifications column, the next day (31 December 2025.)

11. The complainant did not accept that the corrections addressed her concerns: she said the inaccuracy was misleading and had resulted in harmful comments online as well as a petition to revoke her OBE. She said she did not have oversight of the documentary, and the correction had not clarified she had no editorial control or input into the programme.

12. The complainant added that the correction repeated the inaccuracy, as it said she had been criticised for the documentary – she said this implied the criticism against her was justified, when it was in fact wholly misplaced. She said she was not part of the internal BBC investigation into it the programme, and had not been held responsible for the documentary, as it fell under the purview of the BBC News team, which reported directly to the Director General of the BBC. She said the only criticism she had received was in a letter from the newspaper itself, which mistakenly held her responsible for the editorial processes behind the documentary.

13. The complainant also said the article said that the decision to award her with an OBE “reward[ed] failure”. She said this breached Clause 1, as it suggested she was not worthy of the award due to concerns about the documentary

14. The complainant also said the publication has not approached her or the BBC for comment prior to publication.

15. The publication said the article did not report that the complainant had oversight of the documentary, and that the corrections did not attribute blame to her. Rather, it said the corrections explicitly stated she had no input into the programme: “she had no involvement in commissioning or overseeing the production.” It also said it had acted promptly once it was made aware of the complainant’s concerns.

16. The publication said that 45 prominent Jewish figures from across television, film and media directed a letter to the complainant and others demanding details about the making of the film and questioning whether it violated Ofcom rules. It said by directing their concerns to the complainant, this demonstrated their belief that she was one of those to blame for the documentary. It also noted that the complainant sat on the BBC Board and therefore could be expected to have criticism directed at her.

17. The publication also did not consider that article’s reference to “rewarding failure” was inaccurate. It said this referred to rewards for several people mentioned in the article, all of whom have been criticised over their performance in their particular field.

18. Turning to the concern that it had not contacted the complainant or the BBC for comment, the publication said this was not necessary, as the article’s reference to the complainant was accurate and a matter of public record: she had been awarded an OBE and that she had been blamed or criticised over the BBC's Gaza documentary. It also said it did not consider an apology was necessary.

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

19. While the Committee acknowledged the programme was not within the complainant’s remit and that she had not been held responsible for its contents by the BBC, a letter of criticism outlining the editorial failures of the documentary had been sent to the complainant and two other senior leaders at the BBC. The Committee also noted that the complainant sat on the BBC board at the time of the documentary’s broadcast, and therefore had been an individual responsible for the strategic direction of the BBC at the relevant time

20. Given the above, the Committee was satisfied there was a reasonable basis for the article’s claim that the complainant had been blamed and criticised for the documentary. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

21. The complainant had said that the corrections published by the newspaper were inaccurate, as they implied the criticism of her was justified. However, given the corrections made clear that the complainant “had no involvement in commissioning or overseeing the production”, the Committee did not consider that the corrections were inaccurate in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. The Committee next turned to the concerns that the article inaccurately reported that, by awarding the complainant an OBE, those responsible for the Honour List “could be accused of rewarding failure”, and that the award “adds to growing concern over ‘rewards for failure’”. The Committee appreciated the complainant did not consider she had “failed” in relation to the documentary, as it was not within her remit. However, the Committee considered that this was distinguished as conjecture of the part of the publication about the potential reaction to the OBE, given the relevant sentences said the list “could be accused” of rewarding failure, and that there was “growing concern” over this. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

23. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the newspaper did not contact her or the BBC prior to publication. The Committee noted Clause 1 does not require newspapers to contact complainants prior to the publication of articles unless this is necessary in order to take care the article is accurate. Where the Committee did not identify any significant inaccuracies in the article, there was no obligation to contact the complainant or the BBC ahead of publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 30/12/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/04/2026