bobally
Well-Known Member
Dear Complainants,
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article. In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.
When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.
Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy. Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.
Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.
Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police. IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.
Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. This includes the selection and presentation of photographs. In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”. The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested. This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist. Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan. Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.
Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance. It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article. In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.
When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.
Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy. Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.
Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.
Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police. IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.
Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. This includes the selection and presentation of photographs. In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”. The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested. This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist. Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan. Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged.
Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.
Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance. It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
