21982-23 Bliss v The Times

Decision of the Complaints Committee – 21982-23 Bliss v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Steven Bliss complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “US campuses are becoming hotbeds of hate”, published on 27 October 2023.

2. The article, which appeared on page 27 of the newspaper underneath the header “Comment” and the writer’s name and photograph, reported on support for Hamas and “extremist Palestinian movements” in American universities, amid the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. It reported, in its opening sentence, that “[l]oud declarations of support for terrorists who chop the heads off in-utero babies after they’ve murdered the mothers are the kind of things we have become used to seeing on certain sections of the so-called Arab Street”. The article then set out the writer’s view on the “global reaction to the latest horrors in the Middle East” – including that, “[s]ince the atrocities of October 7, there have been hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrations across America, the vast majority on the green pastures of university campuses, many nakedly antisemitic”.

3. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same form. This version of the article was published on 26 October 2023.

4. The complainant said that the first sentence of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). He said that he found it “very hard to believe that” the author could find examples of terrorists who have “chop[ped] the heads off in-utero babies”, and that, although the article was a comment piece, this statement was presented as a fact and was inaccurate.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the article was a comment piece which opened with a “legitimate, if polemic” summary of facts that had been widely reported at the time. It stated that the complaint took the disputed statement out of context and did not reflect the article, which reported on expressions of support for Hamas on the “Arab Street” in comparison to US university campuses. It added that the “actual fact” relevant to the complaint was whether support for Hamas had been deterred by reports of the murder of babies on 7 October. Given that stories of Hamas committing atrocities had been, according to the newspaper, “widely reported and widely believed” at the time of the article’s publication, as had reports of individuals celebrating Hamas’ actions, it stated it had sufficient basis for the columnist’s opinion that “we have become used to seeing” expressions of support for Hamas’s actions; regardless of whether the actions which prompted the support had actually happened, it said it was not in dispute that individuals had supported “terrorists who chop the heads off in-utero babies after they’ve murdered the mothers”.

6. To support its position, the publication provided articles from two international publications, both published on 10 October, which reported on scenes of support for the actions of Hamas. It also provided articles from national and international news outlets, published on 12 October and 13 October. These reported on testimony, from a rescue team in Israel, of a pregnant woman having her child cut from her womb and stabbed, while still being connected by an umbilical cord.

7. In response, the complainant stated that the disputed sentence would be seriously misleading unless there were several instances of terrorists beheading babies in utero. He also said such a reference would be misleading if these instances were not widely reported and generally believed. He maintained that the article reported that terrorists regularly “chop the heads off in-utero babies”, that this is “widely known”, and that those who support their actions therefore support them doing so.

8. The complainant said that the publication had not shown direct evidence of individuals celebrating the beheading of babies and that this had not been widely reported. He noted that the articles the publication had supplied to demonstrate individuals celebrating the actions of Hamas were dated 9/10 October, whereas the reports of Hamas beheading babies were dated 12/13 October; he also added that the publication was conflating reports of Hamas beheading babies and reports of Hamas beheading in-utero babies specifically, and disputed the reputability of the newspapers where these reports had appeared. In any event, the complainant stated that, in his opinion, it is possible to give overall support to what soldiers do, without directly supporting an atrocity they may or may not have committed.

9. Finally, the complainant also contended that the publication had not used its “judgement” in reporting the disputed claim – he disputed the veracity of information originating from the Israeli side of the conflict. He also noted that his complaint pertained to the first sentence of the article: he did not consider that there was any “context” afforded to the sentence.

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

10. The complainant disputed the columnist’s claim that there had been “loud declarations of support for terrorists who chop the heads off in-utero babies after they’ve murdered the mothers…”. In considering whether this raised a breach of Clause 1, the Committee recognised that the article was clearly a comment piece, which gave the writer’s opinion that antisemitism had spread across the campuses of American universities. The fact that an alleged inaccuracy appears in a comment piece does not absolve a publication of its obligations under Clause 1, but the Committee considers this context when deciding whether an article includes significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

11. The article was not a factual report on the Israel-Gaza conflict itself, nor was it a factual report on the actions of Hamas. Instead, the focus of the article was the columnist’s view that the sympathies of America’s young people have moved away from Israel and towards Hamas, and that, in the author’s view, they are seemingly unconcerned by the atrocities which Hamas are reported to have committed. This was introduced by the opening sentence in the article: the columnist expressed concern that there were “[l]oud declarations of support” for the terrorists. The sentence continued by referring to “terrorists who chop the heads off in-utero babies after they’ve murdered the mothers”. The publication relied upon numerous reports immediately following the massacre that babies had been killed by Hamas, including one report, reported in numerous outlets, of an instance in which a baby was alleged to have been taken from its mother’s stomach and murdered. Given the context, in the Committee’s view the sentence under complaint referenced the author’s perceptions about the public reaction to the news reports, and fell short of being a literal assertion that the reported acts had, as fact, taken place. Rather, the acts were referenced as being illustrative of the nature of the atrocities for which the terrorists were said to be responsible, but which nevertheless did not deter the declarations of support for those terrorists.

12. The Committee next turned to the question of whether reporting that there had been support for these terrorists was inaccurate, emphasising that the article did not assert that there had been declarations of support for the referenced acts themselves. The publication had provided copies of numerous reports to support its position that people were celebrating the actions of Hamas after the massacre. As noted above, the publication had also provided reports that were circulating shortly after the massacre that Hamas had murdered babies in-utero, at the time when at least some individuals were expressing support for Hamas, and it was not contended that support for Hamas had ceased after these reports had emerged. The Committee further noted the difficulties in reporting on an ongoing war, where conflicting reports may be emerging and are confirmed or debunked on a day-to-day basis. The Committee also balanced these considerations against the complainant’s position and noted that he disputed the veracity of some of these reports and relied on the fact that the publication had not provided evidence that babies had been beheaded in-utero.

13. The Committee was satisfied that the publication had been able to demonstrate that there had been “declarations of support” for “terrorists” who had reportedly committed atrocities which included killing babies in utero. On balance, and in the context of a polemical comment-piece, in publishing the sentence under complaint, the publication had therefore taken care not to publish inaccurate information and the article was not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted so as to require correction. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A

Date complaint received: 13/12/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/04/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant 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.