Financial Times conflates facts with (anti-Israel) opinions

Though the Financial Times (FT) is not regulated by IPSO, their own Editorial Code states that they operate according to the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, which includes an Accuracy clause stating, in part, that “The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.

Yet, two recent FT articles breached that clause by describing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the US and Israeli-backed Gaza aid organisation which was created to bypass Hamas, and which ceased operations in November after distributing 187 million meals in five months, as having “failed”.

Both examples were straight news articles, and the accusations were made in the journalists’ own voice.

The first news article which editorialised about GHF was written by their Mid-East correspondent Neri Zilber (“Trump administration prepares to unveil new Gaza leadership”, Jan. 13), and included this:

US and Israeli officials tasked with shepherding the fragile ceasefire insist they can make progress, despite the same officials’ past record with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a failed aid distribution scheme whose access routes became the scene of several shootings by Israeli troops.

Four days later, another article was published at the FT, written by their US foreign affairs correspondent Abigail Hauslohner (“Donald Trump names Tony Blair, Jared Kushner and Marc Rowan to advise Gaza ‘Board of Peace’, Jan. 17), and included the following:

The White House said Aryeh Lightstone, who was instrumental in the planning and promotion of the failed aid distribution scheme known as the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, and Josh Gruenbaum, a former official in the US’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, would be “senior advisers” to the board of peace charged with “day-to-day strategy and operations.

It’s hard to imagine a FT article that would describe any other aid organisation as having “failed”.

For instance, UNRWA has been strongly criticised for being one of the major obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace by perpetuating the refugee problem, being infiltrated with terrorists and using curriculum in Palestinian schools that glorifies terrorism.

Yet, a FT editor surely wouldn’t allow a journalist to describe UNRWA as having “failed”, unless it’s in an opinion piece or is characterising the views of its critics.

Indeed, the most the outlet will do is note that such criticism towards the organisation has been leveled by some in Israel. Typical is an FT article on Jan. 24, 2025 titled “Israeli ban on UNRWA could ‘sabotage’ Gaza ceasefire, says agency chief”, which included the following:

UNRWA has long been criticised by parts of the Israeli political establishment, which argued that its mandate to care for Palestinian refugees displaced by the 1948 war that created Israel has perpetuated, rather than helped resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We complained to FT editors, asking that both articles be amended to comply with Editors’ Code requirement to avoid conflating facts with opinions.