A number of reports have reached the Beaver through different sources of information, that a candidate running in the LSE SU Elections has committed a serious breach of a number of LSE SU Byelaws. These reports have been circulated widely in the public domain, with LSE MEMES writing a post about it on their Facebook page last night and publishing screenshots of messages which appear to implicate the candidate, but then subsequently taking them down. The Beaver contacted the candidate who was alleged to have sent these messages, but the candidate refrained from commenting. LSE MEMES was also contacted for comment on why the post was taken down but did not respond either. We as the Student Newspaper were faced with making the decision of whether or not to publish the allegations made by our sources, as well as the content in the screenshots of the messages, and whether or not to name the candidate who was implicated.
As the head of the Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union, which is a formalized, “editorially independent, student-led and accountable media group (4; 54 LSE SU Byelaws)”, whose duty it is to uphold the LSE SU Byelaws, I felt that we could not publish an article on this as doing so would not only break a number of Byelaws, but would potentially violate stipulations set forth in the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Editor’s Code, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct, as well as the Data Protection Act 1998, Part IV Section 32.
It is important to note here that LSE MEMES is an ad-hoc group of anonymous students who are not obligated to follow the Byelaws, and hence it is arguably within their remit to publish information as they see fit regardless of Byelaws or other journalistic codes of conduct. However, we as your student newspaper are obligated to uphold and adhere to the byelaws, the codes of journalistic conduct detailed above, and in this case the Data Protection Act 1998. As your student newspaper, we are also held to a far higher standard of Editorial responsibility than LSE MEMES, and have a duty “To ensure all facts throughout publications and programmes are accurate, and to report and comment, fairly, accurately but critically on matters affecting students and of interest to them, at all times doing so in compliance with the standards outlined in the PCC ‘Editors Code’.”
This newspaper is deeply committed to maintaining the highest possible standards of journalistic integrity. I am of the view that journalism should be practiced in a morally responsible manner which serves the public interest and public good of the LSE student body, by exposing those who are guilty of misrepresentation, injustice, or breaking byelaws. However, journalism that unjustifiably invades the privacy of individuals, whether deliberately or not, and which spreads allegations against individuals without concrete evidence, does the opposite of what good journalism aims to achieve.
There is, arguably, nothing worse a journalist can do than to contribute to and fuel the spread of unsubstantiated allegations concerning a violation of the Byelaws as serious as the messages that were reported to us portray it to be. To blindly publish such allegations would do nothing to test the truth of the claims, and would simply mean that the newspaper is accepting these allegations at face-value as being true.
Furthermore, it would not only be morally irresponsible, but also hypocritical, for us to break the Byelaws, in order to report about a candidate allegedly breaking the Byelaws.
Therefore, having agonised over whether publishing this story would be the “right” thing to do, I reached the conclusion that it would not, for reasons outlined below:
Ongoing internal investigation:
A complaint was made yesterday morning to the LSE SU regarding the contents of these messages, and according to the Byelaws we as a media group are prohibited to publish information pertaining to an ongoing investigation, and must wait for the appeals process (which lasts 24 hours) to be concluded following the outcome of the investigation, “Appeals against the rulings of the Returning Officer or their deputy must be made in writing within one working day of the decision being confirmed in writing.” (1; 58). The Returning Officer informed us that the appeals process would end at 7pm tonight (Wednesday 9th March 2016), until which time we cannot publish information pertaining to the investigation’s conclusions without breaking the Byelaws.
Ongoing Police Investigation:
We were contacted by a concerned party who had made an official complaint to the police regarding the manner in which the screenshots of the messages were obtained. We were told by this party that following the complaint, an official police investigation has commenced and the screenshots are subject to this investigation. In the event of an ongoing police investigation, we as a student newspaper are now toeing a fine line between the public’s right to know versus the individual’s right to privacy. Given that the concerned party in question specifically requested we do not publish the screenshots or the content of the messages we are in no position legally to do so. Indeed, the Press Complaints Commission Editor’s Code outlines that, “Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.”
Lack of concrete evidence:
There is no concrete evidence other than word of mouth that confirms that the messages in question are authentic or that they were in fact sent by the alleged candidate. According to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Editor’s Code, “The press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” When ascertaining whether or not it is in the public interest of the LSE Student Body to publish the information in the messages, the PCC Editor’s Code holds that, “The public interest includes, but is not confined to: Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organization.” Furthermore, although the LSE SU Byelaws state that, “The ability to criticise the Union’s policies or the actions of its officers is recognised as being an essential part of editorial independence and a healthy part of the Union’s culture, subject to the above responsibilities and the law of the land.”, at the same time, “Publications must not express and preference (either positive or negative) for any candidate for election within the Union. All coverage of Elections and Referenda must be balanced, accurate and fair.” Publishing such serious allegations against a candidate on little to no evidence would thus be breaking these byelaws which we have agreed to uphold.
Potential breach of Data Protection Act 1998, Part IV Section 32:
As a student newspaper, publishing the private digital correspondence between individuals is allowed in the case that
(1) (b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest.
Given the reasons already detailed previously, what is in the public interest is a contentious matter and given that it would be unverified evidence which we would be putting in the public domain, this may even mislead or act against the public good and interest, and hence be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Potential breach of journalistic codes of conduct:
We aim to adhere to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) code of conduct has set out the main principles of UK and Irish journalism since 1936. According to this, a journalist should:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion.
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
9. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
10. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
11. A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
12. Avoids plagiarism.
Legally, if we were to go ahead with publishing the article in question given all of the above, the implications would be defamation; by way of causing injury to reputation due to false statements of fact that includes both libel and slander, and False Light; which involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, althought they might not hold up the subject to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. Therefore, as the Executive Editor of the Beaver I made the decision not to go ahead with the publication of an article on this matter.
