AddThis SmartLayers

Watchdog raps regional daily over council eviction story

A regional daily has been rapped by the press watchdog over a story branding the local council ‘inhumane’ over its treatment of homeless people.

Brighton and Hove Council complained after Brighton daily The Argus carried a front-page story claiming the authority had evicted rough sleepers from tents pitched on council land on New Year’s Day.

It contained claims from a representative of homelessness charity Brighton in Need, who alleged those evicted had been awoken in the early hours and given 10 minutes to gather their belongings, or face having them being taken to the dump.

However, during an investigation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation, The Argus was unable to provide any notes taken of telephone conversations in which its journalist had put the allegations to the council for their response.

tents

IPSO ruled that this represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article and upheld the council’s complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The paper subsequently ran a correcttion on page eight, stating the council’s position that the evictions had not taken place and that the report had been based on hearsay, but the authority argued that this was not sufficiently prominent.

The council accepted The Argus had asked it to comment on the allegation that it had evicted homeless people on New Year’s Day and provided a statement which confirmed there were cases where rough sleepers were moved on, but claimed it had been given insufficient time to check the specific allegation.

Furthermore, the council said the reporter had not informed it of the claims that it had woken homeless people in the early hours of the morning, had given them ten minutes to move on, and had threatened to take their belongings to the dump.

The Argus responded that the article was based on a proposal for a story submitted through its website by a representative of Brighton in Need, adding it had spoken to homeless people and volunteers working with them who confirmed that they had seen the council moving people on.

The paper said that it had put all the allegations to the council before publication during a series a telephone conversations and, although it could not provide any notes taken, it was its usual practice to go through all claims thoroughly.

The Argus said it had tried to respond to the concerns raised as promptly as possible, but it could not publish the wording requested by the complainant because it was accepted that the council did sometimes move rough sleepers on.

IPSO found the story on information provided by a credible source although it was accepted that it had put the allegation that homeless people were evicted on New Year’s Day to the complainant, no notes or recording had been taken during the conversation.

The Argus was unable to demonstrate that it had also sought comment on the serious allegation that homeless people were evicted early in the morning, that they had been given ten minutes to move on, and that they had been threatened with the disposal of their belongings.

IPSO also found that the correction run by the paper had not made clear that the complainant denied those serious allegations.

The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

2 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • June 27, 2017 at 12:50 pm
    Permalink

    Skilled subs – some now surplus to requirements – will be looking at the headline and the white space and weeping.
    And is this modern journalism – a report ‘based on hearsay’.
    A new level of sadness for me.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(12)
  • June 28, 2017 at 10:56 am
    Permalink

    no notes taken during conversation? Incredible. Just ringing up for a chat, eh? Did the editor not ask if the reporter could back up the story?
    The latest fall from grace from a once great evening paper that rated along with the best in Britain. A picture repeated elsewhere I am afraid.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)