UK Newspapers Accepted Money to Publish Positive Environmental Stories About Saudi Arabia Around COP26
The Independent and Evening Standard newspapers have been
accused of greenwashing after they accepted an undisclosed sum of money from
Saudi Arabia to publish dozens of positive environmental stories about the
country before, during, and after the COP26 UN climate change summit in
Glasgow.
In the days preceding the summit and during its initial
days, the Independent published at least 50 stories and videos under a commercial
deal with Saudi Arabia, an investigation by Byline Times can reveal.
The bulk of the stories published as part of the deal
highlighted positive environmental actions related to the country and failed to
mention negative contextual details – such as the fact that Saudi Arabia is the
world’s biggest oil exporter and its domestic emissions are nearly three times
the G20 average.
80% of the stories either presented Saudi Arabia’s energy
ministry or an environmental scheme in the country in a positive light. Just
three of the 50 pieces identified under the commercial deal provided contextual
details about Saudi Arabia’s oil production. None of them mentioned its plans
to increase oil production capacity from 12 million barrels per day to 13
million barrels a day by 2027.
One story was headlined: ‘Saudi Arabia Spearheads New Era of
Climate Action’. Others were titled: ‘Saudi Arabia Repositions Towards a More
Sustainable Future’ and ‘Princess Reema Calls for Global Leaders to Deliver On
Climate Action’.
After COP26 concluded, dozens of further stories and videos
were published on the websites of the Independent and the Evening Standard,
under commercial deals with Saudi Arabia.
Newspaper content that has been paid for is regulated by the
Advertising Standards Authority and is subject to consumer protection law.
Under existing legislation, newspapers are required to make it clear that the
content has been paid for.
While most of the stories covered by the commercial deals
were labelled ‘Partner Content’, Byline Times identified 12 articles on the
Evening Standard’s website that did not have any tag informing the reader that
the content was paid for by Saudi Arabia.
These included an article and a video titled: ‘Saudi Leaders
Are Embracing “Unappreciated” Ways of Facing Climate Crisis, Says Researcher’.
Another such story praised a conference organised by Saudi Arabia in London,
calling it the ‘COP of Doers’.
Stories that were part of the Independent’s commercial deal
with Saudi Arabia were also reproduced on the websites of other news
organisations, such as Yahoo News, where they did not carry any label to inform
the reader that Saudi Arabia had paid for them to be created.
The Independent and the Evening Standard’s commercial deals
with Saudi Arabia raise questions about editorial independence.
Jamie Peters, interim director of the environmental
organisation, Friends of the Earth, told Byline Times that news organisations
taking money from oil exporters need to provide increased transparency about
their dealings.
“If news outlets are going to take money from entities that
profit from polluting activities, such as oil exports, it seems right and
ethical that they make their readers aware of how much was paid to secure that
coverage,” he said.
The environmental group Fossil Free London called the deals
“massively problematic”.
A spokesperson said: “People should be very concerned about
Saudi Arabian money pouring into publications like the Evening Standard and the
Independent and the potential impact on editorial impartiality.”
The Independent confirmed to Byline Times that it was paid
by Saudi Arabia to publish stories and videos ahead of COP26, as part of a
partnership with the Saudi Green Initiative (SGI) – a Saudi Government entity
that is focused on climate change and sustainability. However, the newspaper
refused to reveal how many stories it had published under the deal and how much
it had been paid, saying that it was “not obliged to share details of
commercial relationships”.
A spokesperson added: “The Independent was a partner on the
SGI. As part of this partnership, SGI paid for content to be published by the
Independent on the SGI website. As per industry protocol, both the site and the
content were clearly marked as sponsored or partnership content.”
The Evening Standard did not respond to Byline Times‘
request for comment.
‘Unconventional, Complex, Clandestine’ Deals
This is not the first time the newspaper group has been
accused of blurring the line between sponsored and editorial content.
In 2018, the Evening Standard agreed a £3 million deal with
companies, including Google and Uber, promising them ‘money can’t buy’ content,
according to an investigation by openDemocracy. One insider told the
investigative site that “what was being offered was clear – theatrically
constructed news, showing everything good being done”.
The London publication’s former editor – former Chancellor
and Conservative MP George Osborne – was also accused of a serious conflict of
interest in relation to its often positive coverage of the private taxi firm
Uber. In 2017, the National Union of journalists took the rare step of publicly
calling on Osborne to declare to his readers his own £650,000 job with the fund
manager Blackrock, which held a major stake in Uber.
Byline Times‘ latest revelations also raise further
questions about the ownership structure of both titles.
In July 2019, the Independent and the Evening Standard were
explicitly accused by the Government of being part-owned by the Saudi Arabian
state, with a series of “unconventional, complex and clandestine” deals used to
hide the sale of stakes in the news outlets to a Saudi Government bank.
Evgeny Lebedev, who controls both publications, sold 30%
stakes in the two newspapers to offshore companies fronted by a Saudi
businessman, Sultan Mohamed Abuljadayel, in 2017 and 2018. The Independent and
Evening Standard said that they were unsure who ultimately employed the
businessman.
David Scannell, the Government’s legal representative, told
a court that the Saudi Arabian Government could now potentially exert editorial
influence over the news outlets. He said that the sale of the shares has
“public interest considerations”, citing “freedom of expression and accurate
news reporting” as “relevant to this merger”.
He also accused Lebedev of going out of his way to avoid
answering questions about the deals.
Fossil Fuel London is calling for newspapers to provide more
information about content that has been paid for.
“In this ecosystem transparency is key,” a spokesperson told
Byline Times. “The fact that the Standard and the Independent are refusing to
reveal how much they are being paid to publish greenwashing articles is very
worrying. If the public are told how much money is changing hands, they will be
able to make their own informed opinions about how much influence Saudi Arabia
has at these intuitions – and whether the editorial content is being swayed or
diluted due to sponsorship deals.
“As is often the case in fossil fuel financing, there is
very little transparency here and we are being forced to connect the dots to
try and drag shadowy deals out into the light. If we know categorically that a
newspaper has a policy to refuse sponsorship from entities that make huge
profits from fossil fuels, then we can trust it much more as an independent
news source on climate change.
“It’s really sad that, just weeks after COP26, business
leaders and newspaper editors are continuing with business as usual.”
The campaign group also believes that clearer labelling is
needed to identify content that has been paid for in newspapers.
“The system as it exists today makes huge assumptions about
the media literacy of the general public,” the spokesperson said. “The way that
these newspapers use the labels ‘Partnered By’ and ‘Partner Content’ create
ambiguity and it won’t be clear to a lot of normal people that this is being
directly paid for by Saudi Arabia.”
Duncan Meisel, director of Clean Creatives – a US-based
group that campaigns against advertising by fossil fuel companies – believes
that the newspaper content paid for by Saudi Arabia is damaging to society.
“It’s obvious that the advertisements that the oil-connected
countries and oil industry itself run are designed to claim social licence, and
to mislead the public about their commitment to climate action,” he told this
newspaper. “That is the purpose of these ads – and the fact that you’re seeing
so many of them around COP26 demonstrates that the role is to mislead the
public at these moments of highest attention on the possibility of action.
Comments
Post a Comment