• Statistics 2010
• Key rulings 2010
  • Introduction
  • Accuracy
  • Privacy
  • Online privacy
  • Intrusion into grief and suicide reporting
  • Children
  • Undercover reporting
  • Discrimination
  • Financial journalism

Key rulings 2010

Financial journalism

In December 2010, the Commission ruled that a regular share-tipping column in The Daily and Sunday Telegraph did not breach Clause 13 (Financial Journalism) of the Editors' Code of Practice in relation to its investment recommendations.

After the City Slickers case in 2000, specific guidance was introduced in the area of fi nancial journalism by the Commission. This guidance was updated five years ago to take account of relevant legislation, which derived from an EU Directive.

Following a complaint from a reader of the Questor column - who had expressed concern that certain shares in which the column's editor had a stated fi nancial interest were being tipped with excessive frequency - the Commission used the opportunity proactively to test whether the column had breached any aspect of Clause 13 of the Code. In particular, the complainant had pointed to a particular investment trust which had been tipped on nine occasions between 14 January 2009 and 15 April 2010.

The newspaper argued that its journalist had acted properly at all times. However, following the complaint, it made a voluntary undertaking that the Questor editor would not buy or sell shares in the future.

The Commission decided that this case was very different to the City Slickers case. In its ruling, the Commission made clear that it was satisfied in this instance that the Telegraph had followed the requirements of the Code (and the PCC's Financial Journalism Best Practice Note of 2005). In particular, the Commission found:

• the Questor editor had disclosed the interest appropriately to executives and the public;

• the amounts involved were not especially high;

• the editor had not sold any shares about which he had written;

• the shortest gap between a recommendation and his purchase of the recommended stock was 29 days, and there was no evidence of short-term speculation.

The complaint was not upheld.