Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Decision
Introduction
The Article
2. The article is an opinion piece by Michael Hann (the author) published online
very shortly after the death of the comedian Sean Hughes. The article is wide
ranging in its discussion and talks about Sean’s talent as a comedian and
actor and his professional achievements. However, it is also very personally
critical of Sean, in particular in relation to his drinking. The article also
contained the following paragraph:
“It’s also worth noting that it is hard to get people to talk publicly about
Hughes, precisely because so many people had bad experiences with him,
especially women. Those who knew him talk of how he seemed to be
looking for reasons to cut off people he loved: Donnelly recalls Hughes
falling out with one of his oldest friends a few years back, and how he told
Hughes that the other person had done nothing wrong, but this made no
impression. It was as if he was afraid of intimacy, and this meant women
would experience the absolute worst of him. No one I speak to will go into
specifics – it seems not to be something people want to revisit – but dark
mutterings among women who had relationships with him floated around
like an ugly cloud, becoming visible again after his death.”
Complaint to the RE
“I shall go to his funeral on Monday, and I will still be asking myself: who was my
old friend? And why did his life turn out this way?”
10. The Complainant responded on 28 September 2018 noting again the reasons
why it had taken her so long to raise a complaint and expressing distress at
the implication that because her complaint came after others it would not be
considered. She also pointed out that a correction had been made to a
footballer and the team he played for. The RE notes that this had been made
by the RE staff after an error was pointed out by readers immediately
following publication and not as a result of any formal complaint.
12. The complainant complained to the Panel on 22 October 2018. She indicates
that she is complaining both about the text of the article and the RE’s
response. She mainly focuses her complaint on Clauses 1 and 5 of the Code
(accuracy and grief). The complainant identifies a number of “inaccuracies”
which she wishes to have corrected. The most significant of these in the
Panel’s view is the contention that contrary to what is alleged in the article,
Sean was not ‘punched in the face’ before a show by Jah Wobble. The
complainant relies on a memoir by Mr Wobble in which he omits any
reference to this when remembering Sean. She says this demonstrates its
inaccuracy. She seeks a correction of this. She also alleges that the
comments about Sean’s relationships with women and that he was “arrogant,
selfish, demanding and sometimes cruel” was inaccurate and misleading. She
says that despite recognising the intrusion into grief and likely distress the
article would have caused, there was insufficient remedy and an absence of
any apology. She says that having published unspecified allegations, the
Guardian should have either included specifics or apologised for publishing
those allegations.
13. In relation to the RE’s response to the previous complaint, the complainant
says that the comments were not “prompt” as required by Clause 1(ii). She
also makes various complaints about the way the process was handled by the
RE and the lack of clarity as to whether he or the Managing Editor was
dealing with her complaint.
14. On 17 November, the complainant sent the Panel a further email expanding
on her complaint. She sets out further inaccuracies in the article and alleges
that the comment in the article which suggested its author would be at the
funeral amounted to harassment. She emphasises that “the totality of factual
errors, omissions, lack of clarity around comment, conjecture or fact, was
avoidable and caused distress at a time of grief.”
15. The complainant indicated that she would like the following action to be taken
in response to her complaint:
I would like a right of reply for myself as a former partner, in the form of
an addendum of comments, or, a letter published and the link to that
letter added to the article.
If it is not agreed that there has been a breach of the PCC code, I would
like to take this complaint to the Ombudsman as a breach of the
Guardians editorial guidelines.”
16. The Panel notes that many of the above matters did not form part of her
original complaint to the RE.
17. The RE explains to the Panel that his decision was not to investigate the
substantive complaint on the basis that:
i) The article was a year old;
ii) The complainant’s core objection had already been subject to
investigation, decision, and remedial action;
iii) The complaint was not reasonably amenable to investigation and
decision within the editorial standards because the complainant was
saying that:
i. The complainant was unable to mourn at her ex-partner’s
funeral because the article said its author might attend;
ii. The complainant wanted additional information included in the
article such as his various TV and film credits;
iii. The decision of the RE in relation to the original response to the
former complaint ought to have been expressed differently;
18. The Panel considers the following aspects of the Code to be of most
relevance to the complaint:
“Accuracy
Discussion
Inaccuracies
19. A number of purported inaccuracies (19 in total) have been identified by the
complainant. These are, in the Panel’s view, either not “significant” within the
meaning of the Code and/or unable to be objectively substantiated because
they are, for example, her view on events which differs from that of the
article’s author. The article itself is an opinion piece. It makes a number of
The Scott Trust Ltd
6
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
assertions which are plainly the view of the author based on his own
experiences as a (former) friend of Sean Hughes. In order for an inaccuracy
to be subject to a correction or a right of reply, it must be “significant”. The
Panel’s view is that the nature of the inaccuracies complained of are either
differences of opinion or so minor that they do not fall within the meaning of
the Code. The points about the lack of clarity between conjecture, opinion,
and fact are also difficult to substantiate. The Panel recognises that the
complainant’s own personal experiences of Sean were very different to those
set out in the article and the very real distress she clearly feels at not having
the opportunity to include additional information about Sean’s life and his
many achievements. However understandable this wish is, it does not give
rise to a breach of the Code on grounds of accuracy. The Panel also notes
that in addition to this, more critical opinion piece, the Guardian had published
a substantial obituary which remains available online. This was also included
in the print edition of the paper.1 That obituary makes reference to Sean’s
very successful career and describes him as “one of the most important
figures in the evolution of modern long-form standup comedy”. The Panel
gives this some weight as it adds to the overall balance of the coverage about
Sean by the Guardian following his death.
20. The Panel notes the complaint that the Article tends to diminish the success
of Sean’s published books. There is some merit in this observation. However,
the Panel is not satisfied that this impression is based on any significant
factual inaccuracy or misleading statement. The focus in the Article is not on
the success or otherwise of the books themselves but rather the opinion
expressed by the author that Sean was unsatisfied or unfulfilled in certain
aspects of his career. The Panel is therefore not satisfied that this meets the
threshold of “significant” inaccuracy.
21. The complainant notes a spelling mistake in Hannah Norris’ name (it should
not as it says in the Article be “Morris”). She is correct – this is clearly a
typographical error rather than a substantive or significant inaccuracy. It does
not amount to a breach of the Code. However, there is no reason why it could
not be easily corrected – it is different in nature from the other “inaccuracies”
and additional information highlighted by the complainant in that it is
objectively and obviously wrong and can be subject to a straightforward
typographical correction.
22. The other corrections sought by the complainant relate to the dates of Sean’s
novels. It appears that the “error” is the reference to a second print date rather
than the date of original publication. Again, the Panel does not consider this to
1
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/oct/16/sean-hughes-obituary
The Scott Trust Ltd
7
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
even arguably breach Clause 1 and certainly not to the extent that a
correction would be warranted.
23. The complainant (at point 18 of her complaint) says that the quote: "Or him
demanding to be set up to deliver a gag, then refusing to tell it. “I’m not going
to do it,” he said, gesturing to his teammates – musicians rather than
professional comedians – “because these fucking useless wankers aren’t
joining in.” He wasn’t joking" is inaccurate and misleading. She says this is
because the incident in question happened 15-21 years earlier and there is no
evidence attributing this direct quote to Sean. However, the Panel has seen
no evidence that this account of what Sean said is in fact inaccurate.
25. The Panel recognises – as the RE did – that the general allegation of the
serious nature made in the article was likely to cause distress to those who
knew Sean. If it is untrue, it would plainly be a significant inaccuracy.
However, the difficulty is that while it was clearly not the experience of the
complainant, the allegation is made in general terms based on what the
author says he knew from discussions with other women. The Panel cannot
therefore be satisfied that the allegation is inaccurate or misleading.
Accuracy: Conclusion
26. Although there are clearly differences of opinion between the complainant and
the author of the article about who Sean was and how certain events took
place and there are some minor inaccuracies (for example the typographical
error) the Panel is not satisfied that the complainant has identified matters
which give rise to an arguable breach of Clause 1. For the avoidance of
doubt, the Panel does not consider that even taken together, there is an
accumulation of inaccuracy such as to amount to a “significant” inaccuracy
amounting to a breach of the Code. It is therefore of the view that the RE’s
decision not to investigate the substance of her complaint was a reasonable
one.
27. As set out above, it is clear that publishing a general allegation of what is
effectively sexual harassment or mistreatment of women was likely to and did
in fact cause great distress to Sean’s friends and family and to the
complainant. However, this aspect of the complaint was dealt with in detail by
the RE in his response to the article. To the extent the complainant identifies a
breach of the Code, the matter has already been addressed by the RE in his
addendum note to the article. Although the complainant has a slightly different
concern, namely that the allegation about Sean’s conduct towards women
should not have been mentioned at all, the RE has made it clear that the
timing of the article and the way the allegation was expressed was not
appropriate. It was not necessary for the RE to respond to each person who
may have been affected individually, although the Panel recognises that each
person’s own particular grief and distress will be different.
28. This is not intended to diminish the very clear distress that the Article caused
the complainant. However, in reality, the only breach of the Code has already
been dealt with by the RE. The current complaint is therefore academic in that
the Panel would not be able to offer any remedy not already offered by the
Guardian. The only possible further correction would be to make a finding that
the allegation about Sean’s conduct towards women should not have been
made at all given the proximity of the article to his death. However, the Panel
does not find that to be compelling particularly in light of the public interest in
reporting such allegations. The fact that it was not done with greater care or
specificity raised Code issues but to that extent they have already been
adequately addressed by the RE.
29. In relation to the distress caused by the article more generally, the Panel
agrees with the RE that while it is in places critical, it does also include
positive aspects. It is important when considering this aspect of the Code not
to adopt an overly censorious approach in relation to comment – even
negative comment – about those who have recently died. The Panel again
notes the publication of a separate and full obituary and that the Article
therefore does not represent the totality of the coverage by the Guardian
following Sean’s death.
Conclusion
31. The Panel recognises of the complainant’s grief and distress following Sean’s
death and the additional distress that the Article has caused her. However, for
the reasons set out above, it is not satisfied that the RE acted unreasonably in
declining to investigate the substance of the complaint on the basis that her
complaint either (a) did not disclose any arguable Code breach; and/or (b) in
relation to the issue of intrusion into grief and shock, had already been
adequately dealt with by the RE in July 2018.
Dated: 10/01/19
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
The Scott Trust Ltd
10
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
Signed: