The article reported that Mr Hannan, a Conservative MEP, had been ‘dragged into the US race row' after saying he ‘understood the anti-Barack Obama feelings'. It referred to a blog he had written for the Daily Telegraph website in which he had written: "Barack Obama has an exotic background and it would be odd if some people weren't unsettled by it".
Mr Hannan said the article was a gross distortion of his position. His blog had drawn attention to the fact that some of the discreditable attacks on President Obama were based on racism. But it had not sought to justify those attacks. He also stated that the article misleadingly implied that he supported Enoch Powell's views on immigration. He had named Mr Powell as a political hero but did not share his stance on that subject.
The newspaper said that, regardless of Mr Hannan's intention, some people (such as a Labour MP quoted in the piece) had taken offence at the choice of words in his blog, and had interpreted parts of it as empathising with those who were uneasy with President Obama's background. The newspaper said it was entitled to comment on the complainant's public pronouncements. It suggested that Mr Hannan submit a letter for publication in which he could clarify his position.
The complaint was not upheld. Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice makes clear that newspapers are entitled to be partisan. Indeed, this is an integral part of freedom of expression: the right to select what material to cover, and how to interpret it. On this occasion, the Commission was satisfied, given the delicate subject matter, and the fact that the remarks were open to some interpretation, that the newspaper's reporting in this instance was well within the range of political partisanship permitted by the Code of Practice.
The reference to the complainant's admiration for Enoch Powell was arguably slightly misleading, as the context of his regard for Powell - which was not to do with immigration - was unclear. However, the Commission considered that the proposal to publish a letter from the complainant was a suitable response to this part of the complaint. It would have allowed him to clarify both the nature of his comments about Enoch Powell and his views on those who criticise President Obama.
To read the adjudication, click here.
