From

Anonymous

Complaint:

Some tweets lend undue credibility to reports based on anonymous sources. For instance, at 14:52 on the 21st of February 2024, the account posted the following tweet was posted: ==== START OF TWEET ==== 🚨 NEW: Senior Labour figures made it clear to the Speaker that they would bring him down after the election if he didn’t call Labour’s Gaza amendment “you will need our votes to be re-elected as speaker after election” [@nicholaswatt] ==== END OF TWEET ==== My first issue with this tweet pertains to the first sentence. It states that “Senior Labour figures made it clear to the Speaker that they would bring him down after the election if he didn’t call Labour’s Gaza amendment” as if it was a fact. It assumes that the senior labour source was telling the truth and was not mistaken. The only fact that is established by Watt’s tweets is that a senior labour source has *told* him that threats had been made to the Speaker. This does of course assume that Watt is not lying or mistaken, but, given he is a journalist working at a public service broadcaster, assuming this is very different to the assumption you made regarding the source. I do note that a second tweet was posted in the same thread with Labour’s response. However, I do not believe that this is sufficient for two reasons:

1. It does not negate the fact that you lent undue credibility to the claim that Labour placed pressure on the Speaker.

2. This second tweet was posted eight minutes after the first, given how fast-paced events yesterday were, this is enough time for the initial tweet containing your assumption to be seen by a great number of people (without Labour’s response).

My second issue with this tweet is that it makes it seem like the quote is directly from Labour sources, however, this is not the case. The quote is in fact from Nicholas Watt’s original thread, which does not contain that phrase in quotation marks. In fact, I would argue that this phrase reads as a Watt’s summarisation of the message he’d been told had been given to the Speaker. Whether or not it was a direct quotation doesn’t really matter though, as Watt did not indicate that it was, and therefore I would argue that you shouldn’t have assumed it was. I should make clear that I am not alleging that this kind of error is the result of any party political bias. While there is no way of me ruling out that being a factor, I am more inclined to believe that this sort of mistake is the consequence of writing the tweets as fast as possible. This is mainly because this is not the first time I’ve seen you make this sort of assumption and they haven’t all benefited a single party. I’d also like to clarify that my complaint has very little to do with the substance of the tweet, I am not making any claim about the accuracy of the source’s claim. Finally, if I might be so bold as to suggest some potential solutions to the issues raised above: – I would argue that the additional time it takes to ensure the account tweets do not contain assumptions is probably worth it for the improved accuracy. – I note that there is a contention between the simple wording of the account’s tweets (which is something I generally like, as it makes them easy to digest quickly) and ensuring they do not contain the kind of assumptions I’ve set out above. – Ensuring that you always link the specific tweet you’ve used as a source (in addition to the source account) would allow people to quickly read the original tweets should they wish to, and limit the effect of any errors regarding quotations like the one highlighted above. This could be done in the replies to the original tweet like you already do for external articles. [This complaint was brought to you by Dyslexia. May contain poor spelling and grammatical errors.]

Response:

Thanks for reaching out and we really appreciate your detailed feedback. You’re right about the way we presented the information in that post. The admin who wrote it relied on Nicholas Watt’s reputation as a senior journalist and took his report to be entirely factual. In retrospect, the admin realises this approach was a mistake and that they should have made sure it was a claim.
 
This issue was indeed flagged by other admins post-publication, but unfortunately, it bypassed our standard moderation checks as the admin was working solo at that time. We’re addressing this urgently, and we’ve already started bringing on new admins in the last few days to bolster our team and improve our review process.
 
Your input is greatly appreciated and has been fully shared with all admins, who are also thankful for your feedback. Feel free to keep the feedback coming if you have any more observations or concerns.
 

From

Anonymous

Complaint:

You mislead people saying 3 people changed their mind but 8 remain undecided https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1757154211156869491?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ If you use the official exit survey 50% said they would vote Tory now [redacted link] Why are you trying to mislead people by picking only the sample that suits a singular narrative and doesn’t provide a holistic view?

Response:

The exit survey became available 42 minutes after our initial post. We added it to the post shortly after it was released.

From

Anonymous

Complaint

Why haven’t you reported on polls being investigated and just cited them as accurate https://x.com/elenicourea/status/1750529785409986855?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ

Response:

The YouGov poll we recently referenced is not being investigated. The British Polling Council has requested YouGov to clarify who sponsored the poll. Regardless of this information, the poll’s accuracy remains unaffected as it adhered to the established YouGov methodology. 

For more details, please visit: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48462-yougov-mrp-on-best-prime-ministers-for-conservative-britain-alliance

From

Anonymous

Complaint

Your recent video about the PM “walking off” is inaccurate ( https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1748343251038261457?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ ) if you watch the full video you can see they walked off together and continued chatting https://x.com/itvnewspolitics/status/1748362936349794483?s=46&t=ICKrZstrayMGiDUAuul7DQ

Response:

We quickly realised this error and fixed the post. The mix-up occurred due to a shortened Sky News clip being aired on their channels. The full, unedited video could be found on their live politics page. We apologise for the confusion. 

From

Anonymous

Complaint

You claim to be impartial but you’ve constantly picked and chosen topics to support a leftist narrative. You repeatedly report stories in a manner to make the tories look bad (all portray them in a negative light and you ignore positive teports) and you only post positive stories for the Labour Party and disregard other that portray them in a negative light. You must either stop claiming to be impartial or actually be impartial, this is really important especially now due to us entering an election year.

Response:

Thanks for reaching out with your concerns.

Keeping our reporting impartial, especially during an election year, is something we take very seriously. It’s interesting to note that we receive comments about bias towards both the Conservative and Labour party, which suggests to us that we strike the right balance in our coverage. 

Regarding the selection of topics, as a student-run and volunteer organisation, we do face some limitations in our resources. This can impact our coverage at different times. However, we’re actively working on expanding our team to improve our reporting and ensure it remains thorough and fair.

If you notice any unintentional bias in our content, please continue to let us know. Providing specific examples would be really helpful; you can use the form below or message us directly on X.

From

Redacted

Complaint

Your tweet on 19/11/23 at 19:54 states Sunak will not cut inheritance tax after “realising optics of giving to rich”. The statement about realising optics is completely speculatory and opinion-based. Do better and maybe stop stating you’re an impartial news source when NewsHubGroup clearly have a left wing bias. There’s nothing inherently wrong with biased reporting, but shrouding it in impartiality is disingenuous.

Response

Thank you for your feedback. Our post reflected concerns outlined in a credible article about the public’s view on reducing inheritance tax during a cost-of-living crisis, citing “accusations that halving the 40 per cent rate would constitute a handout to the rich.” The phrase ‘realising optics’ aimed to capture the idea that considering and subsequently delaying the tax cut suggests an awareness of public perceptions. 

We completely reject your claim that we have a left-wing bias. All our reporting is fair and considered. In instances where we may not meet this standard, we make corrections as needed. Please continue to let us know of any perceived bias in our content.

From

Anonymous

Complaint

You can’t claim to be impartial while simultaneously editorialising your tweets to include anti-tory sentiment just to appeal to twitter, litterally just say you are a left wing twitter account its not hard. Lying about being impartial is laughable. x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1696506894649639293 

Response

We didn’t intend for the post to give the impression you received. While we respectfully disagree with your claim of bias against the Conservatives in our posts, we do value your feedback and will give more thought to possible interpretations for future posts.

From:

Cabinet Minister Special Adviser

Complaint

Your latest tweet about Robert Jenrick is inaccurate. Robert did not go to the toilet and even the ‘witness’ does not allege that if you read his account. Please can you remove this?

Response:

We mistakenly presented it as a fact despite it being unproven by both the witness and the Sun’s reporting. We apologise for overlooking those details, and we added a quick correction to the thread to explain our error after your complaint. To ensure maximum reach and clarity, we retweeted the correction from our channel. 

However, we chose not to delete the original Tweet completely, as the slight inaccuracy didn’t alter the main story, which is that Mr Jenrick allegedly left the red box unattended for four minutes. We believe it’s important for everyone to be aware of the security concerns there, especially when considering the fact that red boxes contain highly sensitive government documents. The story itself isn’t about where Mr Jenrick allegedly went within the four minutes; it’s about leaving the red box unattended during such time. Any denial by Mr Jenrick regarding not leaving the red box should be addressed with the Sun’s firm reporting, which claims that he did so according to their witness: “A SENIOR Cabinet minister left his top secret briefcase unattended on a public train’s seat.”

You made it clear that this wasn’t enough, repeatedly requesting we take it down completely or you would escalate your complaint. We respect your right to do so and look forward to addressing it further. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You reported that Huw Edwards had resigned from the BBC, this is false and the BBC confirmed this. https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1679174912974503944

Response:

We reported the live statement from the BBC on their own news channel, but they quickly issued a clarification stating that he had not resigned. Subsequently, we deleted our original Tweet and posted a new one to correct the information. This occurred while you were sending your complaint, which was received by us at 18:08pm – the same time our new Tweet was posted.

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

The fact that this account claims to be unbiased is an absolute joke. It has done nothing but spread anti-tory sentiment since the start. The account should cease to call its self impartial.

Response:

We understand your concerns about perceived bias in our posts. Any unintentional bias is obviously not in alignment with our mission, so we appreciate your feedback and we’ll share it with the other admins. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

The Guardian and the FT are the only papers that mention today’s election results. The rest are about the Coronation.” Come on now. Council elections are some of the lowest turnout we have in this country and the Coronation is a once in a lifetime event. I really do think its just a non-story

Response:

Our tweet was simply highlighting the different editorial choices made by various publications. The Guardian and the FT chose to include the local election results, while the majority understandably centered their coverage on the Coronation. This isn’t a critique, the Coronation was naturally going to capture more attention. We were merely pointing out these differences in news focus, rather than implying any oversight. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You posted a lie about a tory leaflet being taken from a door step without having any evidence it was a tory leaflet and you have still got the post up knowing that it was wrong. So you are deliberately lying and misleading people on twitter i have reported it to twitter and will be requesting my followers to report it aswell. You havee evidence to show it is a green leaflet and instead of taken the post down you have choosen to open a poll

Response:

There isn’t definitive proof that the leaflet in question was a Green leaflet. The Tweet made it clear that it might not be a Tory leaflet by using the term “appears” – and the poll recognised the same. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

You only speak about tory, you literally talk about rishi getting moaned at for letting his dog of a lead, but minus on the post for Labour. No word on labour ex council imprisonment for child sex abuse, no mention of labour failed votes to back illegal migration bill. No word on SNP, Libs or I dependant, your a one track page, early days you had fair even reporting. Everyday your posts consist of a couple of no related political posts, and then tory posts. Your happy to post around ex tory mps problems but not ex Labour mps. Your heavy left leaning.

Response:

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Your main point is that our reporting is solely focussed on the Tories, but while this is not true, our reporting will inevitably focus more on the Tories. This is because they are in government, and so they are the decision-makers. When there are stories about the opposition parties, we report on them. Your claim that we’re “heavy left-leaning” is not supported by any evidence, nor is your claim that we post about non-related posts. If you truly believe this, then please submit again with the links of the Tweets. 

From:

BBC

Complaint:

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1634213087556378624 The BBC will not broadcast an episode of Attenborough’s series. They are still going to broadcast the remaining episodes.

Response:

This is correct and we have now deleted the Tweet. 

From:

Anonymous

Complaint:

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1628726243603410947 The tweet appears to be written from a critical perspective of the Tory attack ad, as it uses the word “mocked” to describe how the ad is being received. The tweet suggests a lack of impartiality towards the Tory attack ad and implies a bias towards Keir Starmer.

Response:

We recognise why someone may take this view. The Tweet in question was based on several Tweets – including from prominent journalists – that raised how the attack ad perhaps didn’t have its intended meaning. 

Our Tweet simply reported on how people were seeing the Tweet, which doesn’t breach our claim to be impartial. If we directly raised the concern from our channel however, then this would be a different case. 

We can look into complaints about items we have published which are in our control. If you wish to complain informally, please use the form below and we will publish your complaint on this page. You have the option to submit anonymously. We adhere to the Standards Code adopted by Impress and can only deal with complaints which relate to an alleged breach of the standards set out in this Code: https://www.impress.press/standards. 

We can only deal with your complaint if you are:

  • personally and directly affected by an alleged breach of the Code
  • a representative group affected by an alleged breach of the Code, where there is public interest in your complaint
  • a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published information

We are also regulated by Impress, but initial complaints must be made to us at News Hub Group in writing at the following address:

E-mail: complaints@newshubgroup.com

We will acknowledge your complaint by e-mail or in writing within 7 calendar days and will normally respond to your complaint with a final decision letter within 21 calendar days.   If we uphold your complaint, we will tell you the remedial actions we have taken.

If you are not satisfied with the final response to your complaint, or if you do not hear from us within 21 calendar days of submitting your complaint, then you can refer your complaint to our Independent regulator Impress using the following information: