Executive Summary of Case

1.1. The following summarises the outcome of an initiated investigation launched by IMPRESS on 9 May 2022.

1.2. A social media enquiry was made to IMPRESS from a concerned third party regarding a retweet, by former Southampton footballer Matt Le Tissier, of a post published by Unity News Network (“The Publisher”) via its official Twitteraccount on 5 April 2022 in relation to the Bucha massacre in Ukraine. IMPRESS does not actively monitor the social media content of its regulated publishers. However, considering the seriousness of the subject matter and the media attention surrounding Le Tissier’s retweet, the decision was made to undertake a wider examination of all the posts made from the Publisher’s official Twitter account between 1 March 2022 and 31 May 2022.

1.3. Through examination of these Tweets, the Executive determined that two key themes were prevalent in the subject matter of the Publisher’s social media
output: reporting on the Covid-19 vaccine and the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The Executive proceeded to compile a selection of relevant Tweets and articles from the specified period for consideration. The Committee considered whether 13 Tweets and 2 articles were within IMPRESS’s regulatory remit.

1.4. The Committee was further tasked with deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to justify commencement of an investigation into the publisher on
IMPRESS’ own initiative for potential breaches of the Code.

1.5. The Committee considered that 12 of the 15 published items fell withinIMPRESS’s regulatory remit and should be investigated further.

1.6. The Publisher was informed of the Committee’s decision to proceed with the investigation and provided with questions in relation to the substantive matters raised by IMPRESS. The Publisher declined to respond to these questions and elected to give notice to end its Agreement with IMPRESS.

1.7. The reconvened Committee found that the Publisher breached clause 1 – Accuracy of the IMPRESS Standards Code in relation to 10 of the 12 items
investigated. It further found that the Publisher had breached its obligations under its Agreement with IMPRESS.

1.8. The Committee agreed therefore that the proportionate remedy in this matter would be to end the Publisher’s regulatory scheme agreement with IMPRESS without notice.

Executive summary of Case

1.1. IMPRESS launched its own initiated preliminary investigation into concerns levelled at two publishers regulated by IMPRESS, following the publication of an academic report titled “Antisemitism and the alternative media”; the report was authored by Dr Daniel Allington and Tanvi Joshi of Kings College London and had been commissioned by the Office of HM Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism.

1.2. The relevant publishers are Publisher 1: Canary Media Ltd, publisher of The Canary, an online publication that focuses on campaigning journalism and left-leaning politics, regulated by IMPRESS since 21/08/2017; and Publisher 2: The Skwawkbox, an online publication that publishes news-related material with a strong focus on UK politics and the Labour party, regulated by IMPRESS since 01/10/2017.

1.3. After assessing the material which formed the basis of the report, a Regulatory Committee was convened to decide whether the published material fell within the regulatory remit of IMPRESS, and if so, whether IMPRESS should investigate potential breaches of the Code on its own initiative.

1.4. In total IMPRESS reviewed 42 items (1 tweet and 41 articles). We did not assess any material that was first published before the Publisher entered into a regulatory scheme agreement with IMPRESS, unless our attention was drawn to specific statements that had potential to engage the Code.

1.5. The material was assessed in line with the IMPRESS Regulatory Scheme and against the IMPRESS Standards Code. The relevant clause is:

4.3 Discrimination

Publishers must not incite hatred against any group on the basis of that group’s age, disability, mental health, gender reassignment or identity, marital or civil partnership status, pregnancy, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation or another characteristic that makes that group vulnerable to discrimination.

1.6. The Committee decided that, of the material in remit, none of it reached the threshold which would engage the discrimination clause and, therefore, further investigation would be unjustified. The matter was therefore dismissed.

Executive summary of Case

1.1. On 3 July 2020 IMPRESS issued a press release stating that it was gathering information in relation to allegations and concerns raised about the standards of content of 5Pillars UK. Between 3 July 2020 and 3 November 2020, IMPRESS received representations from 7 different individuals and organisations; those parties did not wish to engage in the formal complaints process.

1.2. Their submissions were gathered and tabled in a report, put to a Regulatory Committee on 17 December 2020 for consideration. 16 items of published material were then considered by the Committee. The Committee was tasked with deciding whether the published material fell within the regulatory remit of IMPRESS, and if it did, whether IMPRESS should investigate potential breaches of the Code on its own initiative.

1.3. The Committee considered that 12 items did not engage the Code or were outside of its remit to consider. It considered that four of the published items should be considered further:
An article published on 25 May 2013 under the headline “Was Michael Adebolajo an MI5 Agent?.”
An article published 14 August 2014 under the headline “Did Western Intelligence murder James Foley?”
A podcast published on 5 September 2019, titled, “Blood Brothers #10: Glorifying drug dealers, sectarianism and Sunni unity”
A video published from 5Pillar UK’s Facebook page on 14 June 2019, titled, “The people of Sodom, Prophet Lut and the LGBT movement”

1.4. The first ground is whether the following published material misrepresented or distorted facts in order to further the Publisher’s worldview, titled:
“Was Michael Adebolajo an MI5 Agent?”
“Did Western Intelligence murder James Foley?”
“Blood Brothers #10: Glorifying drug dealers, sectarianism and Sunni unity”

1.5. The relevant Code standard is Code Clause 1.4: Whilst free to be partisan, publishers must not misrepresent or distort the facts.

1.6. After IMPRESS notified the Publisher of the investigation, the Publisher offered to remove two of the articles that were published on the 5Pillars UK website: “Was Michael Adebolajo an MI5 Agent?” and “Did Western Intelligence murder James Foley?” which had been published before 5Pillars UK became regulated by IMPRESS on 5 April 2018.

1.7. The Publisher stated that it had decided to join IMPRESS in 2018 as it wanted to hold itself to the highest standards. It said that it would not necessarily publish these articles again today. It offered to remove the articles and, as of 12 January 2021, the two articles no longer appeared on the Publisher’s website.

1.8. The Committee noted that position, and further considered that the articles were archived material which had been published many years before the Publisher had entered into a Regulatory Agreement with IMPRESS and had adopted the IMPRESS Standards Code. As the articles had since been removed, the Committee ceased consideration of the two articles.

1.9. The Committee turned its consideration to whether the podcast titled, “Blood Brothers #10: Glorifying drug dealers, sectarianism and Sunni unity” amounted to a breach of the Code. The Guidance sets out that the IMPRESS Code safeguards a journalist’s right to present partisan opinions. However publishers must ensure the information underpinning the expression of their opinions and their ‘take’ on a given story is accurate.

1.10. The Committee considered that the ordinary reasonable listener would clearly regard the views expressed in the podcast as partisan political opinion. Evidence provided by the Publisher supported the position that the opinions expressed in the podcast were views shared by other sources. The Committee accepted that the Publisher was entitled to express or share partisan political views that were controversial or even deemed offensive, so long as it did so without misrepresenting or distorting facts. The Committee noted that the views expressed regarding the intention of nation states were not underpinned by discrete factual statements which could be subject to proof and, therefore, the Committee did not consider that the Publisher had misrepresented or distorted facts. There was no breach of Code Clause 1.

1.11. The second ground is whether the following published material incites hatred against any group on the basis of that group’s race, religion or sexual orientation, titled:
“Blood Brothers #10: Glorifying drug dealers, sectarianism and Sunni unity”
“The people of Sodom, Prophet Lut and the LGBT movement”

1.12. The relevant Code rule is Code Clause 4.3: Publishers must not incite hatred against any group on the basis of that group’s age, disability, mental health, gender reassignment or identity, marital or civil partnership status, pregnancy, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation or another characteristic that makes that group vulnerable to discrimination.

1.13. The Committee considered that the podcast titled, “Blood Brothers #10: Glorifying drug dealers, sectarianism and Sunni unity”, did not feature views about any particular race or religious group, rather, that the particular sections of the podcast were confined to expressions of political opinion about various nation states. The Committee, therefore, did not consider that the podcast was discriminatory.

1.14. In the video titled “The people of Sodom, Prophet Lut and the LGBT movement”, the Publisher’s deputy editor declaimed vehemently that homosexuality was “a gross crime against Allah”. The Publisher’s view was that it was expressing opinion according to its religious tradition. While the Committee accepted that the Publisher was entitled to freely express opinion on matters of sexual morality in accordance with its traditional religious beliefs, it did not agree that the Publisher had sufficiently contextualised its explanation of homosexuality in the video.

1.15. The Committee considered that the ordinary reasonable viewer would not consider crime, criminality and sinfulness as equivalent or synonymous terms. It considered that crime has a clear and persuasive meaning to audiences and to associate this with the LGBT community was more likely to encourage or legitimise real world threat against those in the LGBT community, as opposed to mere association with ‘sin’ or ‘sinfulness’. The Committee noted that the emphasis of tone and repetition used by the Deputy Editor of the publication in the video was pointed and could evoke a strong reaction, which resonated in a way that could put a person or group in fear.

1.16. For these reasons, the Committee decided that the video met the threshold of discrimination set out in Clause 4.3 and a breach of the Code had occurred.

1.17. The outcome of the investigation was that of the 16 published items presented, four were further considered. Consideration was withdrawn for two of those items. With respect to two remaining items, no breach of Code Clause 1 had occurred. A breach of Code Clause 4.3 was upheld concerning one of the published items.

1.18. The Committee directed that the video which appeared on 5Pillar UK’s Facebook page, titled, “The people of Sodom, Prophet Lut and the LGBT movement”, be amended to remove references to homosexuality being criminal or a crime, or alternatively, if those references were not removed, where it was made accessible to audiences either on its Facebook page or via a link on its website, the entire video be removed.