Press Complaints Commission Report
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:01 pm
The following is the ruling of the PCC in our case against the Sunday Times.
I post it in its entirety without comment.
Commission’s decision in the case of
McFarlane v The Sunday Times
The article reported that “the world of British chess [was] being rocked by accusations of homophobia†following an incident in which the president of the English Chess Federation, Mr CJ de Mooi, did not participate in a prize-giving ceremony at the British Chess Championship because concerns had been raised about his attire. Mr de Mooi was wearing a Stonewall UK T-shirt bearing the slogan “Some people are gay. Get over itâ€, and he was asked by an arbiter of the British Chess Federation whether he considered his clothing appropriate.
The complainant said it had been inaccurate and misleading for the newspaper to refer to “accusations of homophobia†given that it accepted that Mr de Mooi had not specifically used this term. He considered that this raised a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that his partner, Lara Barnes, who had been the arbiter involved in the incident, had suffered hate mail and had been branded a homophobe as a result of the article, with major implications for her personally and professionally. Given a subsequent statement by Mr de Mooi on the English Chess Forum, the complainant considered that the article should have been corrected by the newspaper and an article of equal prominence, which retracted the accusation, should have been published. The complainant also considered that the newspaper’s failure to contact the complainant or Ms Barnes for their views on the accusations had breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code.
The Commission first considered the complaint under Clause 1(i) of the Code, which states that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It acknowledged the complainant’s position that the reference to “homophobia†was inaccurate and had caused harm to his partner, Ms Barnes. It was a matter of regret that the complainant and Ms Barnes had been distressed by the publication of the allegations, particularly given Mr de Mooi’s subsequent statement clarifying his position. However, the Commission noted that the newspaper had sought comment from Mr de Mooi, who had raised concerns about the incident, and from Andrew Farthing, the Chief Executive of the English Chess Federation, who had confirmed that the incident was under investigation, and that it had not named Ms Barnes. The Commission understood the complainant’s concerns that the newspaper had not obtained comment from himself or his partner before publishing Mr de Mooi’s allegations, which were significant. It noted that there appeared to be a conflict of accounts as to whether the newspaper had taken specific steps to contact Ms Barnes before publication, which it had been unable to resolve. However, in all the circumstances, it considered that the steps taken by the newspaper to verify the nature of the allegations with Mr de Mooi and Mr Farthing demonstrated that it had taken care under the terms of the Code not to publish inaccurate information.
The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 1(ii) of the Code, which states that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence. Although it was accepted by both parties that Mr de Mooi had not used the term “homophobia†in his interview with the newspaper, the Commission considered that the term was a reasonable description of the allegations that had been made. The claims had clearly been presented as such, and the Commission did not consider that readers would have been given the impression that they were accepted by the other parties involved. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point. However, it considered that the publication – before the complaint to the Commission – of a statement in the form of a letter from Andrew Farthing, updating readers on the situation and making clear that both parties had accepted that the incident had been a misunderstanding, had been an appropriate step. It welcomed the newspaper’s removal of the reference to “homophobia†from the online article in recognition of the complainant’s concerns, and its inclusion of a link online to the full statements by Mr Farthing, Ms Barnes and Mr de Mooi.
The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code. It acknowledged that the complainant considered that a new article retracting the accusations of homophobia should have been published. However, while it acknowledged that the situation had changed following the publication of the article, the Commission had not established inaccuracies in the reporting of Mr de Mooi’s allegations; as such, the terms of Clause 2 – which refer to “a fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies†– had not been engaged.
The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concerns over several inaccuracies regarding the reporting of the events surrounding Mr de Mooi’s leaving the prize-giving. It acknowledged his position that Mr de Mooi had not been “banned†from the ceremony and that the Congress had not decided that he could not be involved while wearing the T-shirt; however, it noted that these claims had been clearly attributed to Mr de Mooi. The newspaper had been entitled to present Mr de Mooi’s account of the incident, and the Commission had not received any complaint from Mr de Mooi that he had been misquoted. In the absence of a complaint from Mr de Mooi or his representative, the Commission could not comment further on this point.
The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concern over the editing of Mr Farthing’s statement. It made clear that it had received a letter from Mr Farthing regarding his correspondence with the newspaper over the article and was grateful for his input. Mr Farthing had noted that he did not wish to take forward a formal complaint against the newspaper, and as such the Commission could not comment further on this point.
The Commission also noted the complainant’s concerns over comments made on Twitter by one of the journalists who had written the article. However, as the complainant had accepted, this aspect of the complaint fell outside of its remit, as such, it could not comment further.
I post it in its entirety without comment.
Commission’s decision in the case of
McFarlane v The Sunday Times
The article reported that “the world of British chess [was] being rocked by accusations of homophobia†following an incident in which the president of the English Chess Federation, Mr CJ de Mooi, did not participate in a prize-giving ceremony at the British Chess Championship because concerns had been raised about his attire. Mr de Mooi was wearing a Stonewall UK T-shirt bearing the slogan “Some people are gay. Get over itâ€, and he was asked by an arbiter of the British Chess Federation whether he considered his clothing appropriate.
The complainant said it had been inaccurate and misleading for the newspaper to refer to “accusations of homophobia†given that it accepted that Mr de Mooi had not specifically used this term. He considered that this raised a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that his partner, Lara Barnes, who had been the arbiter involved in the incident, had suffered hate mail and had been branded a homophobe as a result of the article, with major implications for her personally and professionally. Given a subsequent statement by Mr de Mooi on the English Chess Forum, the complainant considered that the article should have been corrected by the newspaper and an article of equal prominence, which retracted the accusation, should have been published. The complainant also considered that the newspaper’s failure to contact the complainant or Ms Barnes for their views on the accusations had breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code.
The Commission first considered the complaint under Clause 1(i) of the Code, which states that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It acknowledged the complainant’s position that the reference to “homophobia†was inaccurate and had caused harm to his partner, Ms Barnes. It was a matter of regret that the complainant and Ms Barnes had been distressed by the publication of the allegations, particularly given Mr de Mooi’s subsequent statement clarifying his position. However, the Commission noted that the newspaper had sought comment from Mr de Mooi, who had raised concerns about the incident, and from Andrew Farthing, the Chief Executive of the English Chess Federation, who had confirmed that the incident was under investigation, and that it had not named Ms Barnes. The Commission understood the complainant’s concerns that the newspaper had not obtained comment from himself or his partner before publishing Mr de Mooi’s allegations, which were significant. It noted that there appeared to be a conflict of accounts as to whether the newspaper had taken specific steps to contact Ms Barnes before publication, which it had been unable to resolve. However, in all the circumstances, it considered that the steps taken by the newspaper to verify the nature of the allegations with Mr de Mooi and Mr Farthing demonstrated that it had taken care under the terms of the Code not to publish inaccurate information.
The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 1(ii) of the Code, which states that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence. Although it was accepted by both parties that Mr de Mooi had not used the term “homophobia†in his interview with the newspaper, the Commission considered that the term was a reasonable description of the allegations that had been made. The claims had clearly been presented as such, and the Commission did not consider that readers would have been given the impression that they were accepted by the other parties involved. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point. However, it considered that the publication – before the complaint to the Commission – of a statement in the form of a letter from Andrew Farthing, updating readers on the situation and making clear that both parties had accepted that the incident had been a misunderstanding, had been an appropriate step. It welcomed the newspaper’s removal of the reference to “homophobia†from the online article in recognition of the complainant’s concerns, and its inclusion of a link online to the full statements by Mr Farthing, Ms Barnes and Mr de Mooi.
The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code. It acknowledged that the complainant considered that a new article retracting the accusations of homophobia should have been published. However, while it acknowledged that the situation had changed following the publication of the article, the Commission had not established inaccuracies in the reporting of Mr de Mooi’s allegations; as such, the terms of Clause 2 – which refer to “a fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies†– had not been engaged.
The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concerns over several inaccuracies regarding the reporting of the events surrounding Mr de Mooi’s leaving the prize-giving. It acknowledged his position that Mr de Mooi had not been “banned†from the ceremony and that the Congress had not decided that he could not be involved while wearing the T-shirt; however, it noted that these claims had been clearly attributed to Mr de Mooi. The newspaper had been entitled to present Mr de Mooi’s account of the incident, and the Commission had not received any complaint from Mr de Mooi that he had been misquoted. In the absence of a complaint from Mr de Mooi or his representative, the Commission could not comment further on this point.
The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concern over the editing of Mr Farthing’s statement. It made clear that it had received a letter from Mr Farthing regarding his correspondence with the newspaper over the article and was grateful for his input. Mr Farthing had noted that he did not wish to take forward a formal complaint against the newspaper, and as such the Commission could not comment further on this point.
The Commission also noted the complainant’s concerns over comments made on Twitter by one of the journalists who had written the article. However, as the complainant had accepted, this aspect of the complaint fell outside of its remit, as such, it could not comment further.
