Evening Standard forced to admit lies about Climate Camp coverage

repost from climatecamp.org.uk, 19 March 2008: The Evening Standard is having to publish a front page article this evening over the sensationalist lies it told about the Climate Camp. Similar bollocks was spouted by the Daily Telegraph (no surprise there,). Somehow, the WOMBLES started getting blamed for all the crazy plots dreamed up by the journos. So no change there then either. The text of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) adjudication is below this article.

See original article: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/esfabrication.php

Tabloid Fabricated Heathrow Plot

Evening Standard condemned by press watchdog for coverage of the Camp for Climate Action's Heathrow protest. Claim of fabrication upheld.

In a much awaited ruling [embargoed until 11 am] the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) issued a stinging rebuke against the Evening Standard today. The usually mild- mannered PCC slammed the Standard's coverage of last summer's Camp for Climate Action at Heathrow as 'materially misleading' and 'alarmist'. The Evening Standard will be forced to carry the ruling on their front page today.

On 13 August last year, the Standard ran a front page story headlined 'Militants will hit Heathrow' the day before a climate change protest camp near Heathrow airport opened. Chief reporter Robert Mendick said he had uncovered a plot to paralyse the airport via invading runways and placing suspect packages. The story was subsequently echoed in several media outlets, all of which ran the false claims believing them to be true. The Camp for Climate Action immediately wrote to the PCC declaring that the article was "fabricated". The PCC adjudicated the complaint as "upheld".

The PCC gave the strongest possible reprimand in its powers, finding that the article was a 'serious breach' of the PCC code of journalistic standards. They found that "adequate care had not been taken" by the Standard, despite the Standard's claim that their reporting was the result of an 'extensive operation organised by an extremely experienced team of executives and senior reporters'[Doug Wills, Letter to PCC, February 12, 2007].

The rare PCC ruling comes after seven months' worth of submissions, in which the story's authorship, sources and credibility are all called into question. Alexandra Harvey, one of the team responsible for pulling apart the Standard's story, said today:

"This was a political hit job of the worst kind. There was no plot, and the Standard's ever changing claims throughout this process show that this was a fiction created for political ends - to stop the growth of a mass movement taking action on climate change".

Chief reporter Robert Mendick has previously denied writing the very article he authored and the PCC condemned. The Standard subsequently claimed the story was the work of a different junior journalist, Rashid Razaq, working undercover.

Mr Razaq has a history of being accused of fabrications which the Standard has ignored. Last year Mr Razaq wrote a story falsely alleging the showing of films sympathetic to terrorists at the Freud Museum. The alleged interviewee said the interview Mr Razaq reported in the article never took place. A complaint by the museum's director and curator was never answered. An undercover story by Mr Razaq about his work at Barnet Hospital as a cleaner was called into question when the Hospital stated that he was in fact employed as a porter, and had misreported significant facts. "This is a disturbing pattern, and the Standard ought to examine why Mr Razaq was allowed to continue writing these stories for so long," said Ms Harvey.

Natasha Edlemann said, "This summer will see increased direct action aimed at stopping climate change. This growing movement expects and deserves scrutiny from the media, but we need to draw a line under dangerous propaganda by those who claim to care about climate change while seeking to destroy the reputations of the people who are actually doing something about it."

This year's Camp for Climate Action will take place 4 to 11 August at Kingsnorth power station in Kent. Everyone is invited to join in.

See: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

For more gold-plated journalist bollocks, see this article on the Telegraph web site. Brings back such happy memories...

+++++++++++++++++++

PCC ruling on Heathrow protest by the Camp for Climate Action

19.03.08

Alex Harvey of the Camp for Climate Action complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Militants will hit Heathrow", published in the Evening Standard on 13 August 2007, was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1 (accuracy) of the Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld.

The front page article reported that climate change activists at Heathrow were planning to bring the airport to a standstill, via hoax packages and assaults on the security fence. The piece said "two-man teams" had already "used the cover of darkness to look for weak points along the perimeter fence".

The complainant said these allegations were fabricated. Moreover, the Camp for Climate Action had not been contacted for comment on the specific claims.

The newspaper said that its source was an undercover reporter who, during his two days at the camp, had heard conversations where protesters discussed the tactics to which the article referred.

The journalist had made notes - which the paper provided to the commission - soon after he had heard the conversations. The article made clear that the conversations had not taken place during an official meeting. He had also seen two protesters checking out the security fence, although the paper accepted that only one " twoman team" had been spotted and it offered to clarify the suggestion there had been more.

The complainant said it would not have been possible for the journalist to have seen such a mission - something the newspaper disputed - and rejected the offer.

Adjudication

The newspaper's evidence to the commission set out that its reporter had heard, at an unofficial gathering of no more than four protesters, a man "in his late twenties" say: "We need to make people sit up and take notice. Leave some packages around Heathrow. That'll make them take notice."

This remark appeared to be the basis for the front page headline which categorically reported that "Militants will hit Heathrow" and a sub-headline which said "Hoax bombs to cause alerts".

Beyond the comments by the "man in his late twenties" - whose status and identity were unclear, as was whether any plan actually emerged - there was no other evidence for these bold claims.

This was a matter of concern for the commission. There was nothing in the headline to indicate to readers the insubstantial basis of the claims.

Neither was there adequate qualification in the text of the article. And within this context, the failure to make clear the limited numbers of those who allegedly planned "to pose as customers to get into McDonald's and Starbucks in the terminals and then cause trouble" was also misleading.

On the newspaper's account, perhaps only one or two people were overheard suggesting this at small, unofficial gatherings. The complainant denied this in any case - something that was not reflected adequately in the piece.

The claim that "two-man teams" had tested the perimeter fence was also a significant error in the context of the alarmist nature of the report.

The subject matter of the piece would have been of considerable importance to those living in and travelling to London, yet adequate care had not been taken over the presentation of the piece, which was materially misleading.

This was a serious breach of the code. The commission considered that the newspaper should have recognised this at an early stage and been more forthcoming in its attempts to remedy the complaint.

[original article on the Evening Standard web site]

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati