21014-23 BBC Northern Ireland v The Irish News

Summary of Complaint

1. BBC Northern Ireland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Irish News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles:

(1.) “BBC presenter sent explicit images of disgraced reality TV star to work colleagues”, published on 15 August 2023.

(2.) “Calls for BBC probe into claims staff planted in [BBC presenter’s] audience”, published 17 August 2023.

(3.) “Call for probe into ‘bonkers’ claims staff were ‘planted’ in [BBC presenter’s] audience”, published 17 August 2023.

(4.) “[BBC presenter] sent sexually explicit images to several colleagues”, published on 19 August 2023.

2. The articles reported on a series of allegations made in relation to a BBC current affairs programme.

3. On 14 August, one day prior to the publication of the first article, the newspaper contacted the complainant for comment. The email, later supplied to IPSO, set out a number of questions for the complainant:

“A complaint claiming bullying, harassment and the wider culture around [the current affairs programme] was made in 2018. What was the ‘appropriate action’ taken against [the television presenter] over the unsolicited circulation of ‘sexually explicit images’?

As part of its wider investigation into the work environment, did the BBC speak to, interview, anyone other than the complainant or the then current members of [the television presenter’s] team? Were any former members of his team approached or interviewed?

Has the BBC received any other official complaints about the work environment at [the programme]? If so, how many, when and what were the outcomes? Is management aware of any non‐official complaints about the work environment?

How would the BBC characterise [the television presenter’s] with other arms of the organisation including broadly the newsroom and individual members of staff? [sic] Has [the television presenter] complained to senior management about other individual members of staff, notably [a named individual], and/or the newsroom more generally?

[…]

How many official complaints from listeners did the BBC receive about [two of the television presenter’s programmes] over the last year[?]”

4. The complainant responded, on the same date, with the following statement:

“A BBC spokesperson said: ‘We don’t comment on individual staffing matters. The BBC has established processes in place to deal with any workplace-related issues and concerns. These are applied fairly, consistently and with all appropriate safeguards, including in relation to confidentiality.’”

5. The first article appeared across pages 4 and 5 of the newspaper, under the sub-headline: “Multiple sources speak to Irish News about behaviour behind scenes on shows”. In its opening paragraphs, it reported: “Multiple sources have spoken to this publication, which, along with documents, has also been given access to internal correspondence among [the television presenter] and his team. The sources have come forward with details of hard-charging work conditions, circulating inappropriate images of a naked person and ways used to stir debate, many related to controversial political and social issues”.

6. Further to this, the article reported:

“Multiple sources, speaking with inside knowledge, have confirmed [the television presenter’s] outsized ability to drive in a certain direction the conversation on crucial and sensitive debates and his huge influence within the BBC.

[…] Junior members of the radio show staff would be placed in the audience either to raise their hands and make a controversial point or to relay to the production team if they spotted ‘someone feisty’.”

7. The article closed by reporting the statement set out in the complainant’s email of 14 August quoted above.

8. The first article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “BBC presenter […] sent unsolicited ‘sexually explicit’ images of disgraced reality TV star […] to work colleagues”.

9. Later, on the same day, the online version was amended. The reference to staff members raising their hands and making a controversial point was removed. The line in question now read: “Junior members of the radio show staff would be placed in the audience to relay to the production team if they spotted ‘someone feisty’.”

10. At 12.20pm on 16 August, the day after the publication of the first article under complaint, a reporter from the publication contacted the complainant via email. The email included:

“I have a query regarding claims made in yesterday’s Irish News that members of the [the programme’s] production team were placed in the audience.

Has BBCNI launched an investigation into this allegation – or has it previously investigated it?

Has BBCNI established that members of the [the programme’s] production team were placed in the audience?

Does the placement of production team staff in the audience comply with BBC guidelines?”

11. The complainant responded at 4.02pm, with the following statement: “We don’t know the date of the programme about which these claims have been made. If such information is made available to us then it will be investigated thoroughly”.

12. The second article – which only appeared in the print version of the newspaper - was published two days after the first, and appeared on the newspaper’s front page. It opened by reporting: “The SDLP has called for BBC Northern Ireland management to investigate claims that staff working on [the television presenter’s] flagship television show were planted in the audience”. It then repeated the claims set out in paragraph six above – although it did not include the line removed from the online version of the first article, that staff would “raise their hands and make a controversial point”.

13. The third article – which appeared in the same edition as the second article under complaint, and was flagged on the front-page - appeared on page 5, and opened in the same manner as the second article under complaint. It also reported comments from a journalism professor, including that he “described the claim that staff were planted among the audience as ‘bonkers’ and ‘without precedent’”. According to the article, the professor went on to say: “‘Planting people in the audience, even if they don’t take an active role, is bonkers and without precedent far as I’m aware – and definitely in contravention of all BBC guidelines’.”

14. Further to this, the article reported:

“An SDLP spokesperson described the allegation of planting staff members in the audience as ‘very serious’ and one that BBC NI management should address directly.

‘If it is true that members of a programme’s production team were posing as audience members in a live televised broadcast to generate specific, pre-planned lines of debate or attack against guests then it would fall far below the standards expected of a public broadcaster,’ the spokesperson said.

‘The BBC should confirm if they have or will investigate the allegations of the ‘bear pit’ immediately.’”

15. The article closed by reporting:

“However, BBC bosses have responded by saying that they don’t know when the programme or programmes in question were broadcast.

They have also declined to say whether such a practice would be in breach of guidelines. The BBC has extensive guidelines for political programming but for reasons which are unclear, [the television programme] does not fall under that heading.

‘We don’t know the date of the programme about which these claims have been made,’ a BBC statement said in response to queries from The Irish News.

‘If such information is made available to us then it will be investigated thoroughly.’”

16. The third article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Call for BBCNI probe into claims that [programme] staff were ‘planted’ in the audience”. This version was published on 16 August 2023, at 5.36pm.

17. On 17 August, following the publication of the second and third articles, and ahead of the publication of the fourth article, a representative of the complainant emailed a representative of the publication at 12.21am, expressing concern with the publication’s coverage. The email, which made clear that it was “not for publication or quoting”, included:

“It would be impossible for a member of production staff to sit in a studio audience and communicate with the production team without a headset (earpiece and microphone). Any member of the production team using that kit in the middle of a studio audience would instantly be spotted by members of the public and would potentially be disruptive to the filming of the programme - which would make it somewhat counterproductive.

[…]

It is conceivable (though unlikely) that an individual member of production staff could have been seated in the audience and communicated with the then editor of the programme via text message. However, if that had come to the attention of any other editorial leader it would undoubtedly have had serious repercussions for anyone involved.

[…]

It would also be common practice for BBC staff to circulate amongst audiences pre and post transmission, and we would sometimes sit production staff in the audience in order for the programme director to make shot choices, but if your reporting today was based on those kinds of normal production arrangements that would be an unfair distortion of our practices for which I would expect a full apology of the same level of prominence as the offending article.”

18. The complainant, in subsequent correspondence to IPSO, said that the parties then spoke via telephone. During this conversation, the complainant said that its representative asked the publication’s representative to provide detailed questions about the allegations. At 5.04pm on the same day, a reporter from the publication sent the following email to the complainant’s press office:

“This below is what the Irish News has been told. It is claimed this happened regularly up until at least 2017 so there is no specific date.

Is this correct and can the BBC or a representative from the [radio programme] on radio or [the television programme] comment?

Two members of staff, described as junior and employed on the radio show as well, would circulate in the Blackstaff Audience Reception Area (BARA) ahead of the show and identify individuals with forceful opinions. The staff then would be in the audience to relay to producers the individuals to be called on because of their ‘feisty’ opinions.

Further, the front of audience was referred to as the bear pit. Individuals known to have strong opinions on a subject, for example Irish language, abortion etc, would be contacted and invited to be a member of the audience. They would be invited to attend and be seated at the front, the so‐called bear pit. They also would be identified during the show and called upon to voice their opinion.”

19. Following this, the complainant responded to the publication, at 6.06pm. The email read:

“I had hoped that the telephone conversation we had this afternoon would effect some humility on the part of the Irish News, and an admission that today’s front page story (and some previous reporting) was inaccurate, unfair and without foundation.

I asked you to come back to me with specific and detailed questions about how the BBC has manipulated studio audiences as per your allegations.

Instead, [a reporter] has submitted additional questions which ask whether junior programme producers identified people with strong opinions while circulating amongst the audience pre transmission, before then pointing those audience members out to producers.

This is not the same allegation carried in Tuesday’s paper, nor on today’s front page.

On Tuesday you reported that members of staff would, ‘Be placed in the audience either to raise their hands and make a controversial point or to relay to the production team if they spotted ‘someone feisty’.’

In today’s paper you dropped the suggestion that programme staff posed as audience members in an attempt to deceive viewers but retained the suggestion that they sat amongst the audience and used a ‘code word’ to relay messages to the rest of the team.

It is common practice for programmes which offer opportunities for debate to seek out audience members with firm convictions. All discussion programmes take that approach because it makes for better engagement and interaction and a more satisfying experience for participants and viewers and listeners. However, it is a far cry from what you have implied in your newspaper which is, at best, that we manipulated the debate from the studio floor and, at worst, that we attempted to deceive viewers by passing off staff members as members of the public.

As I said earlier, in no way would I wish to play down any of the allegations made by your paper this week. It is right that, as a publicly funded broadcaster, the BBC is scrutinised and held accountable; today’s front page is of a different order of magnitude because it contains allegations that BBC Northern Ireland staff have deliberately set out to deceive the public. I also would suggest that considerations of fairness should apply to all respected journalistic endeavour - including that of the Irish News.

For that reason, I am writing to you formally to request an immediate apology and retraction for your claims that staff posed as audience members and for any suggestion that team members were ‘planted’ in the studio audience.

I’d like to hear from you tonight because I would expect such an apology and retraction to be in tomorrow’s paper with the same level of prominence as the inaccurate reporting.”

20. The complainant’s press office also responded, at 7.12pm, to the reporter’s questions. Its response read as follows:

“A BBC spokesperson said: ‘Conversations would have taken place with audience members as they arrived for [the programme], including about planned discussion topics, their views/interests and if they might be willing to take part in the studio debate. All of this was transparent, routine and had clear editorial justification. It also ensured that we were able to include an appropriate range of views and voices.

‘Audience members who were likely to contribute to discussions – or who had been invited to attend because of their involvement with, or expertise in a particular topic – were situated at the front of the studio. Their location helped to facilitate camera and sound teams and ensured easy sight lines for the presenter in inviting people to participate.

‘All studio discussions require careful research, planning and engagement with potential contributors. These are things that happen prior to broadcast and are about making programmes like [the programme] as good, inclusive and informative as they can be.’”

21. Following this the representatives contacted each other on WhatsApp:

Publication: Thanks for your email. We are on our deadline tonight so I will be in contact tomorrow.

Complainant: Just to be clear Noel, without a commitment tonight to a retraction and apology on the inaccuracies I will ask the press office to put out my email sent to you at 1806 this evening as the basis of a public statement first thing tomorrow.

Publication: We received what we regard as a constructive statement from your press office at 7.12pm tonight and we need some time to consider it. We can reply publicly to any other public statement you wish to send out but our preference is to finalise an updated story tomorrow. Our front page is already gone so I’m sure we will be in contact in the morning.

22. The representative of the complainant did not receive a further message, and on 18 August, it released the following statement:

“A BBC spokesperson said: ‘We can confirm that the Director of BBC Northern Ireland, Adam Smyth, has asked the editor of the Irish News to withdraw the claims that it had made about BBC staff contributing to [the television programme] discussions whilst pretending to be members of the public.

‘He said the BBC had asked several times for evidence to support allegations of audience deception and that nothing had been forthcoming.

‘Adam Smyth said these claims, and the terms in which they were made, had effectively impugned the integrity of many BBC staff.

‘He said that in the continued absence of evidence, The Irish News should withdraw what it had said and publish a correction and apology.’”

23. The fourth article was published the following day, on 19 August. The article appeared on page 4 of the newspaper and reported:

“The Irish News has been told two members of staff, described as junior and employed on the radio show as well, would circulate in the Blackstaff Audience Reception Area (BARA) ahead of the show and identify individuals with forceful opinions.

The staff then would be in the audience to relay to the production team the individuals to be called on because of their ‘feisty’ opinions, according to a source.

Further, the front of audience was referred to as the ‘bear pit’.

Individuals known to have strong opinions on a subject, with examples cited being the Irish language, abortion, and legacy questions, would be contacted and invited to be a member of the audience.

They would be invited to attend and be seated at the front, the so-called bear pit. They also would be identified during the show and called upon to voice their opinion.”

24. The article then included the statement from the complainant’s press office, as set out in paragraph 20 above. Further to this, the article reported:

“Adam Smyth […] the director of BBC NI, said he has contacted The Irish News about the specific allegation in relation to staff being placed in the audience.

He requested ‘an immediate apology and retraction’ for the paper’s claim that staff posed as audience members.

The editor of The Irish News, Noel Doran, said: ‘The Irish News has firm evidence setting out the circumstances in which junior members of staff were placed in the audience of [the programme].

At no stage did we suggest that senior BBC executives were involved in this process.’”

25. The article also reported the complainant’s statement, set out above in paragraph 22.

26. The fourth article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “[BBC presenter] sent sexually explicit images to work colleagues, not only ‘long-term friend and peer outside of work’”.

27. On 29 September 2023, the complainant complained to IPSO. The complaint was closed, on 23 October 2023, due to ongoing legal proceedings between the publication and the television presenter. The complaint was closed on the basis that the publication inform IPSO when the legal proceedings had concluded.

28. On 27 June 2024, a joint statement, from the television presenter and the newspaper, was published in the newspaper. This appeared on the front page on 27 June 2024, under the headline: “[TV presenter] ends legal action against The Irish News”, and on the complainant’s, and publication’s, websites. The article read as follows:

“BBC broadcaster […] has ended legal action he was taking against The Irish News and journalist […].

The case arose following reports published by the paper in August of last year.

“A joint statement said: ‘We are pleased to confirm that [the television presenter’s] legal action against the publishers of The Irish News and the journalist […] has been resolved on mutually satisfactory terms.

‘All the parties agree that a dispute between journalists, each of whom is very respected in their own fields, is undesirable for everyone concerned.

[The television presenter] acknowledges that The Irish News is entitled to report on matters which are in the public interest, including issues linked to the BBC, fairly and accurately.

‘The Irish News, for its part, accepts that at no stage did [the television presenter] or other BBC figures attempt to engage in the manipulation of audiences during his television programme.

‘Both sides agree that press freedom is an essential element of any democratic society.’”

29. Following the conclusion of these legal proceedings, the complainant contacted IPSO on 22 July 2024 to request that it proceed with its consideration of the complaint. The complaint was reopened on the same day, and IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code two days later.

30. The complainant said that all four articles breached Clause 1 as they inaccurately reported that members of BBC staff had been “planted” or “placed” in the audience, and had “posed” as audience members. It also complained that the articles reported that staff had participated as audience members. In particular, the first article reported that staff members would “raise their hands and make a controversial point or to relay to the production team if they spotted ‘someone feisty’.”

31. The complainant said that the production team used “spotters”, whose role was to identify audience members who may wish to participate – they would point out people in the audience who wanted to speak, or had their hands raised, to guide production staff to them. As part of this role, they would also speak to audience members in advance of the show. However, they did not manipulate or contribute to debates, nor did they pose as audience members: they were clearly identified via branded t-shirts, and were placed in stairwells, as opposed to within the studio audience.

32. As well as denying the allegations, the complainant complained that the publication had misrepresented, and overstated, the information provided by its source. It pointed to the publication’s email of 17 August, as set out in full above. The email said the publication had been told that staff members would “circulate” in the audience reception area, and “identify individuals with forceful opinions”. They would then “be in the audience to relay to producers the individuals to be called on”. Furthermore, the email said that the publication were told the “front of the audience was referred to as the bear pit”, and individuals with strong opinions would be seated there, and called upon. The complainant said that the allegations did not refer to staff members being “placed” or “planted” in the audience, or “posing” as audience members. It also did not refer to staff raising their hands to make a controversial point. As such, the complainant said that the publication had misrepresented an unverified claim that appeared to come from a single source.

33. It also said that it was not given a chance to comment on this allegation prior to the publication of the first article. In light of this, the response it had provided, which had been reported in the first article, was misleading: readers would assume that, as it had not responded to this allegation, it had not engaged with it, or had accepted the allegation as accurate.

34. The complainant also complained about a number of further points in relation to each article, and regarding the publication’s editorial process. Turning to the third article, the complainant noted that, on 16 August, the publication had removed a line – that staff would “raise their hands and make a controversial point” – from the online version of the first article. However, the third article, published on 17 August, included a quote provided by a SDLP spokesperson which referred to members of the production team “posing as audience members […] to generate specific, pre-planned lines of debate”. The complainant said that this repeated the inaccurate allegation which, at this point, the publication appeared to be no longer standing by, given that it had been removed from the online version of the first article by this point.

35. The complainant also said that the print version of the third article under complaint did not include its full response, and omitted the following: “If such information is made available to us then it will be investigated thoroughly”. It said that readers would have been left with the misleading impression that the BBC was not interested in addressing the allegations.

36. The complainant also said that the fourth article reported the publication’s statement that it had “firm evidence” that staff were “placed in” the audience – this, for the reasons noted above, was inaccurate, according to the complainant.

37. Finally, the complainant said that the publication had not corrected the record, nor had it apologised.

38. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It accepted that it had been inaccurate to report that staff members were told to “raise their hands and make a controversial point”, as reported in the first article. It said it had been contacted by its source on the morning of publication, who informed it that this was wrong - it had “immediately corrected” the reference from the online article in light of this, by removing it from the article. It said, however, that this was a “passing reference”, and could be seen as “on the periphery” of its coverage – it had devoted a substantial amount of coverage to the television programme and the complainant was only disputing a small part of its coverage.

39. Aside from this it did not believe any aspect of its substantive coverage was inaccurate or misleading. It said it had received its information from a confidential source, who was “very familiar” with the television show and its structures, and that every effort had been taken to check all aspects of its work prior to publication. It said that its research established that junior employees were tasked with circulating among the audience prior to broadcast, and were then in the body of the studio, mostly in the aisles, in a position to point out the people they had already identified as having particular opinions. In light of this, it said it was satisfied that it was accurate to report that employees were “placed in the audience”.

40. In support of its position, it supplied the full, unedited report from its story on August 17. This included the transcript of its interview with its source. The transcript included the following:

“In the past, certainly, a bear pit ‘map’ would be placed on his desk on [the television show] so he could point to them and identify them and get a row started to raise the temperature. He wanted it to kick off to get people talking about the show.’

Q: How did he know it was going to kick-off?

A: He had spotters in the audience who would either raise their hands or have an earpiece in to relay to production if there was someone feisty in the audience.

Q: Where did he get these ‘spotters’?

A: They would normally be juniors on the radio show like [provides their names] and they would get £100 for doing it. They would be in with the audience before the show looking for potential speakers and then during it walking through the audience trying to get angry or vocal or opinionated people to spout off on the live show.”

41. Regarding the complainant’s concerns that the allegations had not been put to them prior to the first article, the publication stated that it was in “regular contact” with the complainant at all times, and stressed that it was ready to publish any responses sent to it. It also said that it did not accept that failing to put the allegation to the complainant rendered the complainant’s published statement inaccurate, misleading or distorted.

42. In response to the complainant’s concerns regarding the reporting of statements by the SDLP, the publication said that the relevant article made clear that the SDLP’s comment related to concerns – which it said the complainant did not dispute - that “junior members of staff [were] placed in the audience of [the programme] to relay to the production team if they spotted ‘someone feisty’”, and that “those working on the show used the codename ‘ra ra’ to refer to delivering an on-air row and that a section of the audience was dubbed the ‘bear pit’”. It said, therefore, there was no breach in relation to these statements. It also said it was in regular contact with the SDLP, and other political parties, regarding the stories – it declined to provide IPSO with details of its communications with the SDLP, however, as it considered it confidential.

43. Finally, the publication pointed to the joint statement that had already been published following the conclusion of legal proceedings brought by the presenter. It said the statement had been agreed by “both sides”, and that it did not believe it appropriate to revisit those issues. It added that it would be happy to attach the statement in full, or an edited version, to the archived versions of its articles.

44. In response, the complainant maintained that the allegations were serious, and could not be dismissed as “passing references”. The significance of the allegations was not limited to the accusation that staff members were “raising hands” – the articles had reported that staff members posed as audience members to influence debates, which would be considered serious editorial malpractice.

45. The complainant also maintained that the term “placed” in the audience was inaccurate. First, it said this would be taken by readers to mean that staff were not just sitting amongst the audience, but that there was something “improper” about this. It also said that the transcript provided by the publication did not support this allegation – it referred to staff members “walking”, not sitting, in the audience. Further, it said that each article complained of included the term “placed” alongside other allegations, which – taken together - suggested editorial malpractice. For instance, there were references to staff being “planted in” audiences and “posing as audience members”, as well as the disputed line that staff were placed in the audience to “raise their hands and make a controversial point”.

46. The complainant also disputed that the inaccuracies had been “corrected” – it said the “raising hands” allegation had simply been removed from the online version of the first article; deletion, it said, did “nothing to alert the reader of the original error”. It noted that nothing had been published in print. It also said that the joint statement did not constitute a correction – it did not identify the articles complained about, nor set out in detail what it considered to be inaccurate in the publication’s coverage.

47. Finally, in response to the publication’s reporting of the SDLP’s statement, the complainant said the statement, which made calls for a “probe”, was based on false assumptions from the publication’s inaccurate reporting.

48. In response, the publication maintained that its reference to employees being “placed” in the audience was accurate, as the complainant had not disputed that they were in the body of the audience, in aisles and seats. It said that it considered the “substantive point” was that staff were intending to create a “bear pit” atmosphere. It reiterated that it had been inaccurate to report the “raising hands” allegation, and that, “allowing for the complexities of a related legal action”, this had been “fully addressed”.

49. The publication also accepted that it had been inaccurate to report that employees “posed” as audience members and had been “planted”, as audience members. It said this had been corrected at the time, and again, believed it was firmly addressed by the joint legal statement. The publication also added that it considered the matters raised by the complainant were best addressed by a clarification, rather than an apology.

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

50. The Committee was clear, firstly, that the publication was entitled to report upon the allegations it had received from its confidential source – it also had regard for the serious nature of the claims. However, this did not absolve it of its obligations under the Code – it was still required to take care over of the accuracy of this material, and to correct any significantly inaccurate or misleading information that was published.

51. The Committee began with the first article. When considering whether the newspaper had taken care in reporting the claim that staff had been “placed”, or had been “placed in the audience either to raise their hands and make a controversial point”, the Committee took into account the transcript of the publication’s interview with its source. The source had not made such an allegation. Rather, they had referred to “spotters in the audience who would either raise their hands or have an earpiece in to relay to production if there was someone feisty in the audience”, and said that staff “would be in with the audience before the show looking for potential speakers and then during it walking through the audience trying to get angry or vocal or opinionated people to spout off on the live show.”

52. The Committee considered the source’s description appeared to tally with the description provided by the complainant – they used “spotters”, who would point out people for the production staff to call on – rather than the articles’ claims that staff members would pose as audience members.

53. While the publication had accepted that the “rais[ing] hands” allegation was inaccurate, it had maintained that the use of the term “placed” was accurate. However, the Committee considered that reporting that staff were “placed” in the audience suggested that the complainant had purposefully engaged in audience manipulation, particularly given that this term appeared in conjunction with the “rais[ing] hands” allegation – the Committee did not consider that the two allegations could be read in isolation from the other. In the Committee’s view, this was also not supported by the source’s comments, which did not refer to staff being “placed” in the audience.

54. Further to this, the Committee noted that the publication had not put the allegation that staff had “posed” as audience members to the complainant prior to the article being published. It had been in contact regarding other elements of its coverage – however, its email of 14 August had not make reference to any of the allegations later disputed by the complainant.

55. In light of these factors, the Committee considered that the first article represented a failure to take care on the part of the publication. In the Committee’s view, it had inaccurately reported information provided to it by its source, and in doing so, had overstated the extent of the allegation, suggesting audience manipulation on the part of the complainant. Further, it had failed to provide the allegations to the complainant – thus preventing the complainant from engaging with, and indeed possibly disputing, the allegations prior to publication. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) in respect of the first article.

56. The Committee then turned to the significance of the inaccuracy. The publication had contended that the disputed allegations represented a small part of its extensive coverage regarding the presenter, and that the complainant had not disputed other parts of its coverage. While the Committee noted the context in which the disputed allegation appeared, it did not consider that it negated the significance of the specific allegations in question. The claim that staff had engaged in audience manipulation represented a serious allegation of editorial misconduct that could have serious reputational implications for the complainant, and individuals associated with the production of the programme. The inaccuracy was significant, therefore, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

57. The Committee then turned to the second and third articles. As noted above, these articles referred to claims made in the first article of staff being “placed” in the audience. They also went further, alleging that staff were “planted” in the audience, and “pos[ed] as audience members […] to generate specific, pre-planned lines of debate or attack”, and quoted critical comments by the SDLP and professor which included these allegations.

58. It was not in dispute that the SDLP and the professor had supplied the responses quoted. However, the premise of these responses was, in part, the allegation of audience manipulation which had arisen due to the publication’s own initial inaccurate reporting. By the time of the publication of the second and third articles, the publication was aware that the complainant strongly disputed this claim, and it had removed it from the online version of the first article.

59. The republication of these claims alongside publication of criticisms of the complainant at a time when the publication was aware of the complainant’s denial and had withdrawn the claim from its online article represented a clear breach of Clause 1 (i). Further, for the reasons already provided above, the Committee considered these significant inaccuracies required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

60. Finally, it turned to the fourth article. This article again reported that staff had been “placed” in the audience – including the editor’s statement that: “‘The Irish News has firm evidence setting out the circumstances in which junior members of staff were placed in the audience of Nolan Live’.” In this Committee’s view, this reiterated the inaccuracies, and continued to report that the complainant has engaged in audience manipulation. Where the publication was aware of its own, initial, inaccurate reporting, this again represented a failure to take care in breach of Clause 1 (i). For the reasons set out previously, this was significant, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

61. As such, the Committee decided that all four articles contained significantly inaccurate information. The publication had removed the disputed reference from the first article – it had not, however, published a correction, nor had it published a correction in relation to any of the following articles. While it had published the joint legal statement, the Committee was clear that this did not suffice for the purpose of a correction – it did not identify the inaccurately reported material, nor the articles where this appeared. There was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in respect of all four articles.

62. The Committee also considered that the inaccurate information warranted an apology. This was the case due to the nature of the inaccuracies – the Committee considered that the articles contained significant allegations which could have had serious reputation implications for the complainant and production staff associated with the programme. The Committee also considered that the possible consequence of the inaccuracies was evident to the publication – it had taken action to remove part of the initial article, but had still published a number of further articles repeating the claims. There was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii), where the publication had not published an apology.

63. The complainant had also said that the third article breached Clause 1 because it omitted part of its response: “If such information is made available to us then it will be investigated thoroughly.” The Committee did not consider that omitting this extract – which it considered a fairly generic response to the allegations - would have rendered the article inaccurate or misleading, nor would it represent a failure to take care. In any event, the Committee also noted that the article included this part of the statement. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

64. Finally, the Committee also expressed concerns about the publication’s handling of the complaint. It noted that, when the complaint was initially closed due to ongoing legal proceedings, this was done on the understanding that the publication would contact IPSO to inform it that the proceedings had concluded – it had failed to do so. Further, the Committee expressed concerns that the publication had failed to provide IPSO with information relevant to its handling of the complaint, namely details of its communications with the SDLP, during the course of IPSO’s investigation. It wished to record these concerns, and flag them with IPSO’s Standards Department.

Conclusions

65. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial action required

66. 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.

67. In coming to a view on the appropriate remedy in this case, the Committee considered the seriousness and extent of the breach of the Code. The articles contained serious inaccuracies, across multiple articles. The publication had also continued to publish the inaccuracies, and had failed to properly correct the record, despite being aware of the inaccuracies at the time. Further, the Committee noted that an apology had not been published which it considered appropriate in the circumstances. Finally, it noted that – should an apology not be published when required, as determined by the Committee under Clause 1 (ii) – generally, the appropriate remedy would be the publication of an adjudication.

68. For these reasons, the Committee had determined that the publication of a correction, or multiple corrections, was not a sufficient remedy for serious and repeated breaches of Clause 1. Taking into account the factors outlined above, the Committee concluded that an adjudication was the appropriate remedy.

69. The Committee then considered the placement of this adjudication. The original print article had featured on page 4 – the following articles had appeared on a number of different pages, including the front page. The Committee noted that front-page and front-cover adjudications are generally reserved for the most serious of cases, wherever the breach appears in the publication – it also noted that, in this specific case, the failures in the publication’s editorial process had started from the initial article. The Committee therefore required that the adjudication should be published on page 4 or further forward in the newspaper. The headline to the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, reference the title of the newspaper and refer to the complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance.

70. The adjudication should also be published online, and a link to this adjudication (including the headline) should published on the top 50% of the publication’s homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. If the newspaper intends to continue to publish the online articles without amendment to remove the breaches identified by the Committee, a link to the adjudication should also be published on each respective article, beneath the headline. If amended to remove the breaches, a link to the adjudication should be published as footnote corrections with an explanation that the article had been amended following the IPSO ruling. The publication should contact IPSO to confirm these amendments it intends to make to the online material to avoid the continued publication of material in breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

Adjudication

71. As set out above, the Committee required the publishing of an adjudication.

72. Following the Committee’s decision, the publication informed IPSO that it had received legal advice that it would be unable to publish the terms of the adjudication the Committee had required – doing so would place it in breach of legal undertakings it had given to a third party.

73. The Committee agreed a revised version of the adjudication for publication, which it considered made clear the circumstances of the complaint. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:

BBC Northern Ireland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Irish News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in four articles published in August 2023.

The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required The Irish News to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code.

The articles reported on various allegations relating to the atmosphere and editorial standards of a prominent news-related television programme. This included a specific allegation of misleading activity by production staff.

The complainant denied the specific allegation of misconduct by production staff. It said that all four articles breached Clause 1 as they reported this allegation.

IPSO was clear, firstly, that the publication was entitled to report upon the allegations from its confidential source. However, it was still required to take care over the accuracy of this material, and to correct any significantly inaccurate or misleading information.

IPSO reviewed the material the publication had provided from the confidential source, to substantiate the claim. It concluded that the specific allegation of misconduct in dispute was not supported by the source’s comments.

It inaccurately reported information provided by the source, and in doing so, overstated the extent of the allegation. This constituted a failure to take care - the first article breached Clause 1 (i). The subsequent articles had been published at a point when the publication was aware that the complainant disputed the claim, which it had removed from the online version of the first article. The republication of these claims, alongside publication of criticisms of the complainant, at this time represented a further breach of Clause 1 (i).

The inaccurate claim could have serious reputational implications for the complainant, and individuals associated with the production of the programme. It was significant, therefore, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The publication had not published a correction in relation to any of the articles. There was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in respect of all four articles.

IPSO also considered that publication of the inaccurate information warranted an apology to BBC Northern Ireland. There was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii) where the Irish News had not published an apology.

Date complaint received: 22/07/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/03/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication 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.