In August’s Reputation Report, our Reputation Management specialists share their analysis on what lessons can be taken from this month’s biggest news stories. We look at Noel Clarke’s failed libel action against the Guardian, employees’ concern around the Turing Institute’s ‘toxic internal culture’, and the late-night face-off between Alexander Isak and Newcastle United.
Noel Clarke and the Risk of Litigation Backfiring
Neil McLeod, Divisional Managing Director, Corporate
Noel Clarke’s failed libel action has been heralded as a triumph for investigative journalism – and a compelling example of how efforts to defend reputation can spectacularly backfire.
The actor and film director sued the Guardian for defamation, claiming its multi-part investigation into sexual misconduct and bullying, published in 2021 and including testimony from 20 women, was untrue and damaging.
His £70million claim, heard over six weeks at the High Court, proved to be more box office than his own roles. The court heard a weight of evidence against Clarke, delivered by more than a dozen accusers and seasoned journalists.
The result was a slam dunk victory for the Guardian. In a 224-page landmark judgment handed down by Mrs Justice Steyn, it was ruled the publication had succeeded in its defence of both truth and public interest. Clarke was described as neither “a credible nor reliable witness” by the judge.
Clarke’s legal efforts bought him only a damning, High Court rubber-stamped verdict of his conduct.
The outcome can be said to serve to boost Britain’s often criticised libel law reputation.
It also underlines that any litigation, particularly in matters as high-profile as Clarke’s, should always be aligned with seasoned, direct PR advice that sits outside the legal bubble. Failing to do so runs the real risk of digging a deeper hole – adding time and more cost onto any hope of reputation recovery.
The Turing Institute in a Crisis of Confidence
Tim Jotischky, Divisional Managing Director, Reputation
The Turing Institute, launched in 2014 to harness the talent at leading universities and make the UK a world leader in AI, is in crisis.
Employees have complained to the Charity Commission about a “toxic internal culture” and almost 100 signed a letter of no confidence in the leadership. Peter Kyle, the science and technology minister, has instructed the Institute to change priorities, focusing on defence and security. Questions are being asked about whether its £20m-a- year funding represents value for taxpayers.
Faced with a barrage of criticism from all sides, the Institute has been slow to defend itself. That’s understandable – in a crisis, it’s tempting to close the shutters, hunker down and wait for the storm to pass.
And when the fiercest criticism comes from within and your own staff are repeatedly briefing journalists about their employer’s shortcomings, it is even harder to mount a fightback.
But in this scenario, it can sometimes be the least worst option. When the prevailing narrative is that the Institute is in imminent danger of collapse, the risk of further alienating critics by hitting back is worth taking.
The leadership is under pressure to change direction, both from within and from its government paymasters. The Institute needs to go back to first principles, explain its purpose, rebut allegations of incompetence, and make a compelling case that its work should extend beyond national security.
All the noise is coming from the Institute’s detractors; it needs to communicate a counter-narrative with just as much vigour.
Alexander Isak vs Newcastle United
Fredrik Jonsson, Associate Director, Reputation
Alexander Isak finally got his £125m move to Liverpool on the final day of the Premier League’s transfer window – but at what cost to his reputation?
When the striker went public with claims of “broken trust,” Newcastle’s decision to issue a counterstatement within hours was telling. On the one hand, it made sense: the club had to protect both its assets and its reputation. On the other hand, the speed and tone of that midnight release may have solidified battle lines with a player effectively on strike.
Could a more measured, behind-the-scenes response have preserved at least some goodwill between club and player?
Newcastle legend Alan Shearer offered a cutting analysis of Isak’s behaviour: “I was flabbergasted at his statement, that was chucking petrol on the fire.” Shearer questioned why he signed a six-year deal without get-out clauses, calling it “bizarre to say someone had agreed verbally” to future terms.
Verbal promises are not binding, and public statements can backfire spectacularly if poorly timed. It is always preferable for two parties in disagreement to mediate in private rather than trading accusations in public.
Ultimately, player power prevailed – but Isak’s return to St James Park in a Liverpool shirt will be an X-rated encounter.