A question of accuracy

The first clause of the Editors’ Code of Practice frames the importance of accuracy in reporting. It’s a factor cited in many complaints.

The Editors’ Code of Practice is made up of 16 clauses and sets out the wide range of standards that underpin IPSO’s pledge to maintain levels of editorial quality, ranging from privacy and harassment to the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge.  

Clause 1 (Accuracy) states that the press “must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text” and that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence”.  

An issue that IPSO is often called upon to consider is whether an inaccuracy or misleading statement is “significant” in context. This is important because an inaccuracy does not, in itself, constitute a breach of the Editors’ Code. A publication’s responsibility to offer a correction is only triggered if an inaccuracy is significant, and there is a breach of the Code only if they do not, or if the Committee determines that the inaccuracy came about because the publication did not take care over the accuracy of the claim prior to publication. 

“Although people can have different views about what constitutes a significant inaccuracy, we look at whether the inaccuracy in a story has distorted the reader’s understanding. For instance, in general a typographical error wouldn’t reach this bar. To have breached the Code, the publication must have published a “significant inaccuracy” that remains uncorrected, or failed to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images,” explains Emily Houlston-Jones, Head of Complaints.  

Deciding whether a publication has breached Clause 1 or defining inaccuracy in a story, is not straightforward.  

In Duncan v The Sun on Sunday, complainant Stephen Duncan said The Sun on Sunday’s report that support for Scottish independence had plummeted since the death of Queen Elizabeth II was inaccurate. The complaint mentioned that the article had compared two different opinion polls with different methodologies carried out by two separate organisations, and used this for the basis for the claim that support for Scottish independence had gone down.  

The Complaints Committee ruled that a breach of Clause 1 had taken place as comparing the two opinion polls with one excluding views of undecided pollsters and the other including them – and not explaining that different methodologies had been employed – was significantly misleading. This comparison had formed the basis for the conclusion in the article that support for Scottish independence had plummeted and therefore the publication was in breach of Clause 1. 

IPSO received 73 complaints that a Daily Telegraph article headlined “Doctors and nurses may join wave of strikes” breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) (Various v The Daily Telegraph). The sub-heading said ““Medics balk at 9.3pc offer during the cost-of-living crisis, as NHS warns any rise will come out of care budget.”  

The complainants alleged that the headlines were misleading as no doctor or nurse was going to get the 9 percent pay rise. The only staff eligible were Band 2 NHS employees, who include healthcare and catering assistants.  

The Complaints Committee ruled that the article had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as the headline appeared prominently and was fundamental to the subject of the article, strikes and public sector pay. It found that the article was misleading and required publication of an adjudication. 

A case in which a complaint was not upheld was Mills Nanyn v Mail Online. It revolved around a High Court judgement against the complainant where he was sentenced to a suspended six-month jail term for breaching his undertaking to stop bothering a woman.  

The complainant said Mail Online had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code. He disputed reference to the suspended sentence and exchange of money in the article. He also denied meeting the woman on Tinder or that he was an aspiring merchant seaman. 

The publication maintained that the article was based on a publicly available court judgment which clearly said that the complainant’s six-month jail term had been suspended for a period of two years. It denied that there was any reference to an exchange of money but said that the court had ordered him to pay the woman’s legal costs. It also said the woman’s barrister had mentioned Tinder during court proceedings but maintained that the name of the app was not significant in the context of the article. 

The Complaints Committee also ruled that the man being ordered to pay the woman’s legal costs was supported by the judgement. Also, it maintained that whether the couple had met on Tinder was insignificant given the context of the claim in the article which focused on the complainant’s conduct to the woman and his breaches of undertakings to the court. It also ruled that as the complainant was involved in the maritime industry it was not misleading to refer to him as an “aspiring merchant seaman.” So, the complaint was not upheld.