The Telegraph Media Group’s response to Peter Oborne’s bombshell of an article about pandering to HSBC was to “refute” it as “full of inaccuracy and innuendo”.
It would say that, wouldn’t it? But what is the truth of his allegations about editorial being compromised by TMG’s desire to placate advertisers?
If the Telegraph wants to be believed, it has to address each one, not with a blanket denial, but with a specific explanation. To assist the publisher, here’s the list of Oborne’s claims, and a set of relevant questions in every instance:
Allegation 1: Oborne wrote an article last year about HSBC sending letters to British Muslims saying their accounts had been closed. It was not published. When he asked why, he was told there was “a bit of an issue” with HSBC.
Questions to TMG: Was Oborne’s article turned down? If so, why was that article - later published here on the OpenDemocracy website - rejected?
Allegation 2: In January 2014, the Telegraph’s then banking correspondent, Harry Wilson, wrote an article citing an analyst’s report claiming there was a “black hole” in HSBC’s accounts. It was later taken down from the paper’s website.
Questions to TMG: Why was Wilson’s story removed? Did HSBC, or its lawyers, complain about the article? If there were legal problems with the piece, why was Wilson not consulted about them?
Allegation 3: On 4 November 2014, several newspapers prominently reported a blow to HSBC profits when the bank set aside more than £1bn for customer compensation and an investigation into the rigging of currency markets. The Telegraph downplayed the story by giving it just five paragraphs on page 5 of the business section.
Questions to TMG: Why was such a significant story given so little coverage? Was any editorial executive ordered to give it short shrift?
Allegation 4: On 10 May 2014, the Telegraph carried a lengthy feature on Cunard’s Queen Mary 2 liner on the news review page. Oborne believes this amounted to a plug for a major advertiser.
Question to TMG: What was the justification for publishing a puff piece on a page generally reserved for serious news analysis?
Allegation 5: The Telegraph, alone among UK newspapers, failed to hold the Chinese government to account over its reforms to the Hong Kong electoral system that led to last year’s street protests. Indeed, on 15 September, it published a commentary by the Chinese ambassador, Let’s not allow Hong Kong to come between us, that sought to justify the electoral reforms.
Questions to TMG: Why did the Daily Telegraph hold back from criticising the Beijing government? Did the coincidental publication, on 16 September, of the lucrative monthly China Watch supplement play a part in editorial decision-making?
Allegation 6: On 23 September 2014, the scandal about Tesco’s false accounting made big headlines (front pages of Guardian, Financial Times, Independent) and across the broadcast media (BBC coverage here). But the Telegraph confined it to the business section.
Questions to TMG: Given Tesco’s prominence, why was such a major story not carried on the front page or, at the least, in the general news pages? Were advertising considerations taken into account in reaching that decision?
Allegation 7: On Monday last week (9 February), BBC Panorama screened its story that alleged a wide-scale tax evasion scheme by HSBC’s Swiss banking arm, and The Guardian published its HSBC files along with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The rest of the press recognised the story’s significance. The FT splashed on it for two days. The Times and the Daily Mail gave it solid coverage.
By contrast, the Telegraph gave it only six paragraphs at the bottom of page 2 on Tuesday and seven paragraphs in the business pages on Wednesday.
Questions to TMG: Why was the HSBC story, which dominated the news agenda for days on end (and still does), virtually ignored by the Daily Telegraph? Were editorial executives ordered to downplay the story?
Allegation 8: Three years ago, the Telegraph’s investigations team spent three months researching accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. Although six articles were published between 8 and 15 November 2012, three are no longer available to view.
The reporters were ordered to destroy all emails, reports and documents relating to their HSBC investigation. Lawyers for the Barclay brothers [Sirs David and Frederick, TMG’s owners] “became closely involved”.
Questions to TMG: Why are some of the articles no longer available? Why did lawyers for the Barclays take an interest? Why were the reporters ordered to destroy emails and other documents?
Allegation 9: From the start of 2013 onwards, stories critical of HSBC were discouraged.
Question to TMG: Was that so?
Allegation 10: HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph and winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months.
Questions for TMG: Did HSBC suspend its advertising? Was it considered an urgent priority to restore it?
Taken together, these allegations do appear to form a compelling pattern of the boundary between editorial and advertising having been breached.
It is all very well for TMG to issue a statement condemning Oborne, but his allegations are so detailed, and well researched, that they need to be answered separately. I will be happy to publish the publisher’s replies.
PS: An analysis by the Media Standards Trust has found that the Telegraph published “far fewer articles” on the recent HSBC tax avoidance scandal than rival papers. This also requires explanation from TMG.