Barents Observer violated good press ethics
In a citation article, Barents Observer published accusations against a Norwegian businessman in Russia without quoting the man's response to the allegations. This was a violation of the man's right to simultaneous reply.
Barents Observer (BO) wrote about a Norwegian businessman who supplied ships to the Russian oil and gas industry. The article wrote that the man "actively assist[s]" and "is closely cooperating with" Andrei Patrushev, who is the son of Nikolai Patrushev, then head of Russia's Security Council. "Arctic oil, family affairs and a link to the FSB," the newspaper wrote in the headline. The article was published in English and Russian and was a citation piece from articles in Stavanger Aftenblad and Dossier Center.
The Complaint
The Norwegian businessman claimed that Barents Observer stated false claims. He has neither a link to the FSB nor cooperated closely with or actively supported Andrei Patrushev, he maintained. This was also not stated in Stavanger Aftenblad's article, which BO based its citation piece on, the complainant argued. Furthermore, the complainant felt he was not given the opportunity to refute the allegations in the article. He was never contacted before publication. The complainant stated that the newspaper contacted his father and sister, but he did not learn of this until after publication. The complainant also argued that the newspaper omitted the rebuttal he had given to Stavanger Aftenblad. The complainant considered Dossier Center a politically motivated project that BO should have been critical of as a source.
The Media's Response
Barents Observer believed it had grounds for the information in the article, and claimed that the complainant has "close connections to powerful forces in Russian politics and business." The revelations in Stavanger Aftenblad and Dossier Center were of great public interest, and BO must be able to relay these. BO pointed out that Dossier Center has been behind several groundbreaking journalistic cases and collaborated with recognized media outlets in Europe. According to BO, the complainant operates in secrecy, and it was not possible for the editorial staff to find his contact information. Therefore, the editorial staff contacted his sister and father. According to the newspaper, the complainant was thus made aware that they were trying to get in touch with him. BO referred to the last sentence in the Code of Ethics' 4.14, which states that criticism and news reporting “must not be hampered by parties being unwilling to make comments".
PFU's Assessment
The Press Complaints Commission (PFU) emphasizes that the complainant's business in Russia is of great public interest, and that Barents Observer, as an independent newspaper, was fully entitled to critically examine the business.
At the same time, PFU points out that the newspaper's journalism must be done in accordance with the ethical requirements in the Code of Ethics.
Independent Assessment
The committee notes that the article in question is a citation piece, based on articles in Stavanger Aftenblad and the Kremlin-critical investigative group Dossier Center. There should be room in press ethics to relay information that other media have worked on and published. However, the editorial staff must make an independent assessment of the information, cf. Code of Ethics 3.2, on fact checking. If the editorial staff cannot document the facts themselves, it is important to take sufficient reservations.
Wording in a Gray Area
PFU sees that Barents Observer's article had clear source references to Stavanger Aftenblad and Dossier Center. In this way, it was clear to the reader that the newspaper based the article on information from other media. Still, PFU understands that the complainant reacts to certain formulations in Barents Observer's rendering. The committee emphasizes that the media should not go further than there is coverage for in the material they cite. On the contrary, there may be reason to take greater reservations than the original publication if the editorial staff themselves have not been able to verify the information.
In the article in question, PFU finds wording that was in a gray area and points, among other things, to the formulation that the complainant "actively assist[s]" Andrei Patrushev, a man with close ties to the Putin regime. However, it is possible to interpret the wording in different ways, and PFU emphasizes that the information on which both this and other formulations were based, namely the complainant's business relationship with the man, appeared in the publication.
Real Simultaneous Reply?
The central question in this PFU case concerns simultaneous reply, cf. Code of Ethics 4.14. Those who are subjected to strong allegations of a factual nature should be given the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations in the same publication. PFU emphasizes that the requirement applies even if one cites allegations that originate from another medium.
PFU notes that Barents Observer unsuccessfully tried to get in touch with the complainant. The editorial staff contacted the complainant's sister and father, but the committee cannot see that this gave the complainant a real opportunity to respond to the specific allegations. PFU understands that Barents Observer finds it problematic if sources evade contact with the press. PFU nevertheless emphasizes that a real opportunity for simultaneous reply is given only when the editorial staff has ensured that the accused party has been made aware of the information they plan to publish.
Simultaneous Reply in a Citation Article
In citation articles, it may in several cases be sufficient to reproduce the reply that the accused party has already given to the original medium. If one bases the reply on what the person has answered in another medium, it is important that the editorial staff is faithful to the content of the original publication and quotes in a reasonable manner.
Here, PFU sees that Barents Observer has failed. Barents Observer published the critical information from Stavanger Aftenblad's article, but only briefly reproduced the defense from the complainant. The complainant's reply to Stavanger Aftenbl ad contained central information that should have been included.
Barents Observer has violated good press ethics on the Code of Ethics' 4.14.
Oslo, September 25, 2024
Anne Weider Aasen
Eivind Ljøstad, Øyvind Kvalnes, Ingrid Rosendorf Joys, Ådne Lunde, Nina Hernæs
------------------------------
The Press' Professional Committee (PFU) is a complaint body appointed by the Norwegian Press Association. PFU processes complaints against the media in matters of press ethics. E-mail: pfu@presse.no
