Readers' Ombudsman: Lack of clarity over author was a blow to the paper’s authority

Published on Sunday 25 May 2008 22:45

THERE may be a couple of defences left open to us after a complaint from Robert Miller-Bakewell, but neither of them are very convincing. The fact is we made quite a serious error. We have to be seen to be above questions of partiality or deference to powerful factions, and in this case we were not.

Mr Miller-Bakewell wrote: “I always have understood that it was best newspaper publishing practice to separate/distinguish between news reporting, comment/opinion and advertising.

“You carried an opinion article by Jack Perry, chairman of Scottish Enterprise. The column was stated to be an opinion. However, nowhere were Mr Perry’s links to Scottish Enterprise identified. Thus an uninformed reader could have assumed that Mr Perry was an independent commentator on the latest restructuring of Scottish Enterprise.”

The defences to that would be that on the previous page there had been a news story concerning Scottish Enterprise in which Mr Perry was identified as the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, or (even weaker) that the intelligent readership of The Scotsman business pages would know who he is. Neither defence is acceptable.

The difficulties of doing what we did are highlighted by Mr Miller-Bakewell’s next questions: “Was Mr Perry paid for the article? Was it simply a smart piece of placement by Scottish Enterprise’s spin doctors? Or, was it paid-for advertising?”

To answer those questions, Mr Perry was not paid for it, and neither did SE pay. I think journalistically having the head of a big organisation explaining or detailing a major change is a valuable commodity: straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. But if it is to have any value for the reader it must be clear where it is coming from.

We failed to do that, and consequently we did two bad things: one was render the article valueless to the reader because they could not judge it properly without the missing piece of information, and the other was to leave us open to allegations or the perception that we were somehow either being deceptive or allowing ourselves to be deceived.

Both of those go to the heart of our credibility and authority. So, as I said, it was actually a very serious error. It was only carelessness, but the lesson for us is that we cannot afford to be careless about such issues.

It wasn’t a good week for us, really. Vincent McDee takes issue with a headline. “How could you allow this headline?: ‘Scotland to be ‘named and shamed’ by UN over child welfare failures’. By Tanya Thompson.

“The ‘by’ is not the United Nations, but some scaremongering charity with an agenda of their own, but you let Thompson say otherwise. Why?”

Firstly, the story was written by Tanya Thompson and was entirely accurate. That story said: “Scotland will be ‘named and shamed’ in a damning report to a United Nations watchdog…”

Reporters do not write headlines and are not responsible for them. In this case, the mistake lay with the sub-editor.

After that, I feel I have to close on a positive note: step forward Kevin Hutchens of Stonehaven. “It is good to see The Scotsman laying out so clearly its vision and ideals. Likewise, it is good to see it examining the key issues as they face Scotland in 2008.

“However, most importantly for your readers and correspondents it is great to see an ongoing commitment to dialogue with your readership. Long may such true marks of democratic debate and acceptance of responsible expression continue.”

&#149 If you have a complaint about editorial in The Scotsman then contact Readers’ Ombudsman Ian Stewart: tel [phone], via e-mail at [e-mail] or 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AS.