By Thomas Kinsella

Last week The Daily Telegraph, and its cheerleaders in Parliament, suffered an all-out meltdown after IPSO (the press complaints-handler run by the press itself) upheld a complaint against the newspaper. The ruling concerned a January front-page story that repeated Michael Gove’s assertion in the Commons that the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is a “British affiliate” of the Muslim Brotherhood. IPSO found that, because the paper’s print edition failed to include MAB’s denial or even seek a fresh comment, the article was “significantly misleading” and breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code.

The truth is that the ruling was inadequate and ought to have gone much further. Not only did The Telegraph & its Parliamentary backers overlook this detail, but they made no reference to the facts that (a) IPSO uses a standards code written by a Committee chaired by none other than the editor of The Telegraph, and (b) IPSO’s rules are set by the Regulatory Funding Company, which features Telegraph Executive Lord Black as a director.

What exactly did the Telegraph publish?

The print headline, “UAE brands UK organisations as terror groups for links to Muslim Brotherhood”, ran alongside a paragraph stating as fact that Mr Gove had “identified the group’s British affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain” and that its "Islamist orientation and views... give rise to concern". In truth, this affiliation is hotly disputed. Online, The Telegraph belatedly pasted in a year-old statement from MAB rejecting extremism but still omitted the key line that the association is not a Brotherhood affiliate. Neither version showed any attempt to contact MAB before publication.

Parliamentary privilege protects MPs speaking inside Parliament from the threat of litigation for what they say. The press can report Commons proceedings but it does not protect a newspaper from regulatory action to repeat an allegation as fact or shirk basic standards of accuracy.

In its coverage, The Telegraph had failed to clearly identify the assertion that MAB was affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood as an allegation, and not a fact.

IPSO overlooked this.  But it did at least note that the Telegraph “had not taken care” and highlighted the absence of any outreach to MAB, a step any responsible journalist would take before accusing a civil-society group of extremist links. They therefore ruled that readers could “believe the allegation had gone unchallenged and is accepted”, and that remedial action was required.

IPSO’s remedy: too little, too late

Despite acknowledging the seriousness of labelling a mainstream British Muslim body as tied to an Islamist movement, IPSO required no apology, no equal-prominence correction and of course no fine (IPSO has never issued one). Instead, the Telegraph was told to print a brief notice in its little-seen Corrections & Clarifications column and add a footnote to the online article.  

That limp sanction is typical. IPSO’s own figures show that in 2023 it upheld a mere 0.7 per cent of the thousands of complaints it received, 52 in total. No wonder editors treat adverse rulings as a minor inconvenience.

This, it should not be forgotten, for an allegation of implied endorsement of terrorist activity against a civil society organisation; a devastating and serious allegation indeed.

Telegraph’s response

Instead of reflecting on its failure, the Telegraph launched a coordinated backlash. A column by Michael Gove branded IPSO’s decision “an attack on free speech”, while friendly lobby groups claimed the body was “undermining parliamentary privilege”. The irony is hard to miss: the same newspaper that chairs IPSO’s Code Committee (its editor Chris Evans holds the role) and whose executive director Lord Black of Brentwood helps set IPSO’s rules via the Regulatory Funding Company now cries censorship when those lacklustre rules are barely applied to it.

Of course, what this is really about is the strategy of The Telegraph, The Spectator and other publications to give IPSO the perception of independence by attacking it from time to time.  No reasonable person could seriously consider that a notice in the corrections column of a newspaper for an unjustified allegation of support for terrorist activity is regulatory overreach.  This is a press poodle, getting kicked by its owner to make a point.

Public trust in the press (now the lowest in the EU) will not be rebuilt by self-interested newspapers policing themselves. A truly independent regulator, with the power to order prominent corrections, impose meaningful fines and launch standards investigations, already exists in the form of Impress. Local and specialist publishers have joined and yet the nationals refuse (apart from Byline Times, who announced they had joined last week). Parliament should now act, either by incentivising membership of an independent body or by legislating to ensure every major publisher answers to one.

Until that happens, newspapers will go on publishing allegations as fact, minority groups will continue to be smeared, and IPSO will continue to issue lacklustre rulings from which the public learns very little, and the press learns nothing at all.

‍