04272-24 Various v The Star (Sheffield)

Summary of Complaint

1. The Independent Press Standards Organisation received various complaints that The Star (Sheffield) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a reader’s letter headlined “YOUR VIEWS - Brainwashed?”, published on 12 June 2024.

2. IPSO received over 110 complaints about the reader’s letter. In light of the volume of complaints received, and where the specific input of a complainant was not necessary, IPSO decided to summarise the complaints for the purpose of investigating the complaint on behalf of the complainants.

3. The article appeared on page 21 of the newspaper on the “Your Views” page, which consisted of letters submitted by readers. The letter under complaint stated that students campaigning for Palestinians were “brainwashed” and that Palestinians “are Muslims and unfortunately whichever way you look at this the majority in the world are conflicts caused by Muslims. This is not racism it is absolute fact”. It was signed off with the reader’s name and the first part of their postcode.

4. The complainants said that the letter was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They said that, not only was the letter offensive and Islamophobic, it also inaccurately said that it was an “absolute fact” that the majority of conflicts in the world were caused by Muslims.

5. The publication accepted that the letter was inaccurate and offensive, and said that publishing it was a grave error. It said that, whilst all letters are reviewed and fact –checked by experienced and qualified staff members, on this instance these checks failed in what it described as a regrettable lapse of standards. Prior to being contacted by IPSO, and in the next issue of the newspaper, the newspaper published an apology, as well as several readers letters responding to the letter under complaint. The apology appeared on the same page in a similar position to the original letter, was highlighted with a red border and was signed by the print editor. It was headlined “Apology” and stated:

“We would like to sincerely apologise for a letter about student campaigns which appeared in The Star yesterday. We fully accept that the publication of the letter was a serious misjudgement and we are deeply sorry. “

6. The letters from other readers which accompanied this apology were all critical of the letter and the decision to publish it. Several also commented on the inaccurate information: one described the letter as “completely out of context” and “blatant misinformation”; another stated that saying the majority of conflicts are by Muslims was both “abhorrent and demonstrably false”; that it was ignorant and uneducated; one questioned “which facts” the original letter had been referring to; and one said it contained “many mistakes” which exposed its Islamophobic perspective, including that the majority of conflicts are caused by Muslims – stating that the respondent considered the correct position to be that in many current conflicts Muslims were the victims of state aggression and even genocide.

7. The publication said that, in addition to the published letters and apology, it had written to each individual who had complained to the publication directly in order to apologise, where possible on the same day it received their complaints. It also said that the editor and print team responsible for the inclusion of the letter had been spoken to at length about the matter. It said it had taken its error extremely seriously and had tried to deal with it promptly and appropriately.

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

8. The Committee was aware, both due to the number of complaints received and their content, that many complainants had found the reader’s letter to be offensive and Islamophobic. However, its role was to consider the matter under Clause 1 and to determine whether the letter was inaccurate, misleading or distorted; the terms of this Clause to not relate to concerns that material is offensive or may cause harm.

9. The newspaper accepted that the reader’s letter was inaccurate and should not have been published. Whilst the letter itself, as a reader’s letter, was clearly distinguished as such rather than as a news article, it also stated that it was an “absolute fact” that the majority of conflicts in the world are caused by Muslims. The letter contained no basis for the claim that the majority of conflicts were “caused by Muslims” and the publication had not taken any steps to verify or challenge this information – for instance, by setting out the factual position elsewhere, or publishing a letter on the same day disputing this claim I This, amounted to a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information and a breach of Clause 1(i).

10. The Committee considered that the claim that it was an “absolute fact” that “the majority in the world are conflicts caused by Muslims” was significantly inaccurate. It considered this to be the case in the context of a reader’s letter criticising those who support Palestinians, and given the wide ranging nature of the claim. The Committee considered that the letter therefore required a correction under Clause 1(ii).

11. The publication had, in the edition directly following the letter under complaint, dedicated its entire letters page to responses to the letter under complaint, from both the newspaper itself and the various readers who had found it offensive and inaccurate. The Committee considered that the acknowledgement by the editor that the letter should not have been published, in addition to the various readers’ responses citing that the letter was inaccurate, made clear that it was inaccurate to claim that the majority of conflicts in the world are caused by Muslims. Publishing the apology and response letters in the next available edition, and on the same page, represented due promptness and prominence. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).

Conclusions

12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).

Remedial action required

13. The published reader letters acknowledged that the previous letter was inaccurate, and the published apology acknowledged that the letter should not have been published. Both were published promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 12/06/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/07/2024