BY GABRIEL PRINCEWILL
The press watch dog ruling that the Sun newspaper’s article suggesting the Queen backed Brexit constitutes a breach of press regulations, is questionable.
Britain’s best selling newspaper published an article in March suggesting that the Queen backed Britain leaving the EU. The headline in question had appeared alongside a picture of the Queen above the quote ”EU going in wrong direction”. In the article, The Sun made reference to two unnamed sources who had claimed the Queen made critical comments that expressed her disapproval with Britain remaining in the EU at two private functions.
One of the sources according to The Sun, said they witnessed a ”bust up” between the Queen and pro-EU former deputy PM, Nick Clegg in 2011 which it said ”left no room for doubt about her passionate feelings over Europe.
Buckingham Palace was furious and insisted that the Queen was ”politically neutral”. They complained in March that the headline ”Queen Backs Brexit”, published in March, was ”significantly misleading”, a ruling eventually made by the Independent Press Standards Organization(Ipso). Following the ruling,The Sun has been ordered to print a retraction or apology. That ruling appears to have flaws, however well intended.
The Palace claims the headline was tantamount to her Majesty breaching her constitutional obligations not to interfere in political affairs. The palace further believes that it amounts to the Queen being a supporter of the Leave campaign in next month’s referendum – a claim insisted by the palace to be “misleading, distorted, and unsupported by the text”. Mr. Clegg himself denied the claims, but the Sun said it stood by its story and would defend itself “vigorously”.
ASSERTION
In it’s ruling, Ipso said the article itself did not breach the Editor’s Code of Practice, but “the headline went much further than a claim about what the Queen might think”. The ruling read:
“It was a factual assertion that the Queen had expressed a position in the referendum debate, and there was nothing in the headline, or the manner in which it was presented on the newspaper’s front page to suggest that this was conjecture, hyperbole, or was not to be read literally,” it said.
Ipso added that “it did not follow from the comments the article reported that the Queen wanted the UK to leave the EU as a result of the referendum: that suggestion was conjecture” and was “significantly misleading – given that it suggested a fundamental breach of the Queen’s constitutional obligations”.The complaint was upheld under clause one of the code of practice which refers to accuracy.
FACTUAL
The ruling by the watchdog is questionable because the fact that the newspaper reported a factual assertion of the Queen’s position in the referendum debate amounts to a logical inference that she wanted Britain to leave the EU. A literal interpretation of the Sun’s report speaks for itself. The sun’s article explicitly states that the unnamed sources claimed that the Queen expressed her ‘disapproval’ about Britain remaining in The EU. This is the same position about next month’s referendum which the press regulating body says the paper made a factual assertion. Any speculation in relation to the paper’s comments being conjecture or hyperbole, doesn’t even arise because the facts overtly reveal her expressed views on the matter at the time of the function. Where the press watch dog may have had a valid argument is if the reason for their ruling had been that the Queens comments in 2011 does not prove she hasn’t hypothetically changed her mind on the EU now.
That may have been a subjective though rational theoretical stance to hold,or levy legitimate criticism just as equally as the Sun could counter argue that in the absence of evidence to the contrary of her 2011 stance, it is intuitively plausible to assume she hadn’t changed her mind. Both conflicting positions could stand in paradoxical fashion. Nevertheless, the natural impulse to make an extrapolation from the reported account about the Queen’s views on Europe at the time cannot be resisted.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS
The ostensibly related issue that the Sun’s article suggested the Queen had breached her constitutional obligations is likely the reason for the watchdog’s position against The Sun newspaper. Herein lies an easily mistakable conclusion interwoven in the complexity of what constitutes the Queen’s constitutional obligations. The Queen has a political duty not to interfere in political matters in public. However, comments made at a private function are not meant for public consumption, so she has not breached anything by expressing her opinion in private. She does have a right to express her opinions in private.
Where confusion arises is once someone leaks matters discussed in private to the press, who naturally have the right to freedom of expression, and the latter does what they do best- publishes it. They have done nothing wrong, but chosen to reveal an interesting story many people would want to know. Any suggestion that the revelation in the paper insinuates a breach of the Queen’s constitutional obligations is erroneous, because she did not volunteer her views to the public domain. She said what she said at the function, what she said was leaked, and the Sun Newspaper factually published what she said. The Palace’s reaction was due to the misguided perception that the article meant the Queen had breached her constitutional obligations.This indeed might have been the general perception, but this perception was wrong.
The individuals deserving of reprimand of any sort in this situation is neither the Queen nor The Sun paper, but rather he or she who leaked the story to The Sun. And even they can cry ”I have a right to freedom of expression”, and what can anybody say? Perhaps they can be morally rebuked. A number of leakages about the Queens comments have occurred recently, calling for a greater appraisal on how circumstances relating to her majesty should be handled, either internally or externally.
The Ipso report fell short of explicitly affirming what the Queen’s expressed position in the referendum was, about which it admitted the Sun made a factual assertion.
A conclusion that it does not follow from the comments reported in the article does not follow that the Queen wanted the UK to leave the EU as a result a result of the referendum was a ”conjecture”, and ”considerably misleading”, seems to be patently flawed, since this is a logical deduction that can be arrived at if she voiced her objections to staying in Europe.
The only intuitively rational criticism that could possibly be levied against the Sun newspaper is that the fact she felt that way at the time in 2011 does not mean she still held those views at the time of the Sun’s publication. People can change their opinions with time as they evaluate more facts and information they may later come to their disposal. Also, the paper made no reference to the reported comments by the Queen as amounting to ”a fundamental breach of her constitutional obligations”, a conclusion that should more accurately be seen as a conjecture on the part of the press watchdog.
The Queen, like all citizens, is entitled to an opinion on any matter, but is politically restricted from expressing them in public when concerning political matters in order to avoid a conflict of interest between her role as the head of the Monarchy and the political process of various issues of national interest. Any comments she made at a function was not meant for public consumption, but rather for the ears of those around. If a newspaper chose to reveal opinions she made at a private function public, this cannot logically be concluded to mean she breached her constitutional obligations.
The ruling of the press regulation seems more in tune with the objective of ensuring the Queen is not seen to have breached her constitutional obligations- the latter of which is fair, but not not necessarily the finding against the Sun.
Pic – courtesy of The Sun
