Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00359-22 Kay v express.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Anthony
Kay complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment), and Clause
12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Antivaxxers are dumb as breeze blocks - it's time we stopped tolerating them
PAUL BALDWIN”, published on 11 January 2022.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – was an opinion piece, setting out the
writer’s view on “[a]ntivaxxers” – people who have chosen not to receive a
Covid-19 vaccine. It stated that people “are fed-up of seven out of 10
Covid-infected people taking up hospital beds not being vaccinated”. It also
stated that the writer “like all sane people with a vague concern for
self-preservation, […] ha[s] no problem with vaccine passports.”
3. The
complainant said that the article contained several inaccuracies in breach of
Clause 1. He said that, while the article reported that “seven out of 10
Covid-infected people taking up hospital beds” were unvaccinated, the actual
figure was closer to 3 out of 10. He provided statistics from December 2021 to
support his position on this point: Statistics from Public Health Scotland
showing that 541 vaccinated people were hospitalised versus 168 unvaccinated (2
out of 10); statistics from NHS Wales showing that 433 vaccinated people were
hospitalised versus 79 who were unvaccinated (2 out of 10); and figures from
the UK Health Security Agency reporting that 8,566 vaccinated people were
hospitalised versus 4,738 unvaccinated people (4 out of 10).
4. The
complainant also said that the article was inaccurate as the latest figures
from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) indicated that 4 out of 5 Covid-19
deaths in the month leading up to 11 January 2022 had occurred amongst the
double and triple vaccinated; the Covid-19 vaccine was “experimental” and would
not be authorised until 2023; and that the article omitted to state that
Covid-19 vaccinations did not prevent either infection or the transmission of
Covid-19. He then said that the article could not simply be the comment of the
article’s writer, given that the publication had – in his view – adopted the
writer’s position in its headline, and therefore it was not distinguished as
comment in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv).
5. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12 and Clause 3, as he
believed the headline and article was intended to shame people who had chosen
not to be vaccinated.
6. The
publication did not accept that the article breached the Editors’ Code. Turning
to the complainant’s Clause 1 concerns, it said that that the BMJ had – on the
4th of January 2022 – published a fact check, addressing the question of how
many patients in UK intensive care units who had Covid-19 were unvaccinated.
The fact check had found that in December 2021 the proportion of patients
admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed Covid-19 who were
unvaccinated was 61%, having fallen from a 75% in May 2021. It also noted that
not all patients who are admitted to hospital would use a hospital bed, and
that occupied hospital beds within critical care settings were the most
crucial.
7. The
publication also noted that the BMJ’s Fact Check had found that the highest rate
of unvaccinated patients in intensive care was 66% and, in north-east London in
December 2021, 80% of critical care patients had not received two doses of the
vaccine. With this in mind, it considered that there was sufficient basis for
the article that “seven out of 10 Covid-infected people taking up hospital
beds” were not vaccinated.
8. While
the publication did not accept that the “7 out of 10” reference was inaccurate,
it did offer to amend the article as a gesture of goodwill to refer
specifically to critical care beds, rather than hospital beds. It also said
that it would be content to add a line to the article, clarifying the sources
of the “7 out of 10” figure.
9. Addressing
the complainant’s Clause 12 concerns, it said that these concerns did not
engage the terms of the Clause and therefore it could not have been breached.
The publication did not address the complainant’s Clause 3 concerns.
10. The
complainant said that amending the article on a single point would not be
sufficient to address his concerns; he said that, in publishing the figures in
the first place, the publication was “following uncritically the [government]
narrative”. He also said that, even if
one assumed that the 6 out of 10 figure from the BMJ was correct, this was not
the same as 7 out of 10, as the article reported.
11. He
also said that IPSO should not take a narrow, legalistic view of the terms of
Clause 3 and Clause 12, and should accept that his concerns fell under the
terms of these Clauses and should be addressed. He also said that the article
should make clear that only 20% of critical care beds were utilised. Finally,
he noted that he would perhaps be content to resolve his complaint should the
publication publish some form of wording which accepted that the article was
“provocative” and had gone too far.
12. The
publication did not consider that it would be appropriate to publish the
wording suggested by the complainant, but said that it would be happy to add
further wording to the article – beyond simply amending it – in the form of a
footnote, elaborating on what amendments had been made and why. It proposed to
publish the following footnote:
This
article has been amended to make clear that the statistic of 'seven out of 10
Covid-infected people taking up hospital beds' relates to those in critical
care, and taking up hospital beds long term. We are happy to clarify this.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A fair
opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
13.
While the Editors’ Code acknowledges that the press is entitled to publish the
view of individuals, there remains an obligation under Clause 1 to take care
not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. The article
included the claim that “seven out of 10 Covid-infected people taking up
hospital beds [are not] vaccinated” and – while the claim had appeared in a
comment piece – the publication had not disputed that the claim was a claim of
fact.
14. The
Committee noted that there were a wide-range of figures, all of which were from
reliable sources – devolved governments, medical journals, and local NHS trusts
– regarding how many individuals in critical care with Covid-19 were
unvaccinated, with the lowest estimates ranging from 30% and the highest being
recorded as 80%. The Committee noted that it was not in a position to resolve
the discrepancy in these figures; rather, its role was to determine to what
extent, if any, the publication had a factual basis for stating that “seven out
of 10 Covid-infected people taking up hospital beds [are not] vaccinated”, and
whether it could establish any inaccuracy requiring correction. The Committee noted that there were
differences in methodology between the sources, with some sources defining “unvaccinated”
as someone who had not – in December 2021 – received two doses of a Covid-19
vaccination, and other sources defining it as someone who had received no doses
at all.
15. The
publication had provided figures which showed that the proportion of people who
had received no vaccinations at all who were being treated in a critical care
setting in a hospital had peaked at 75% in May 2021, before dropping then
rising again to 61% in December 2021, according to the BMJ. The Committee also
noted the wider context at the time that the article was published, which was
that critical care bed occupancy, and the pressure on critical care units –
rather than overall hospital bed admissions – was a key component of reporting
and debate. The data demonstrated, therefore, that the figure varied, and that
at times it had been the case that 7 out of 10 people occupying critical care
beds who were unvaccinated. There was, therefore, a basis for the “7 out of 10”
figure, and no breach of Clause 1 arose from reporting this figure.
16. The
complainant had also said that the article breached Clause 1 as it omitted to
refer to the following points: that figures from the UK Health Security Agency
(UKHSA) indicated that 4 out of 5 Covid-19 deaths in the month leading up to 11
January 2022 had occurred amongst the double and triple vaccinated; that the
Covid-19 vaccine was “experimental” and would not be “authorised” until 2023;
that Covid-19 vaccinations did not fully prevent either infection or the
transmission of Covid-19; and that only 20% of critical care beds were in use
during the pandemic. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of
information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the
Code. In this instance, there was no obligation for the article to refer to the
information flagged by the complainant, where not doing so did not render the
thrust of the article – that the writer believed there should be more measures
in place to discourage people from refusing the Covid-19 vaccination –
inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17.
While the complainant considered that the scope of Clause 12 and Clause 3
should be widened to deal with his concerns, the Committee noted that its role
was to adjudicate on complaints based on whether the terms of the Clauses have
been breached; it would not be possible, or desirable, for the Committee to
unilaterally expand its remit to address concerns which do not relate to the
Code as written.
18. With
this in mind, the Committee did not consider that the terms of Clause 12 or
Clause 3 had been breached, where the former Clause relates to specific
references to an individual’s protected characteristic – and the article under
complaint included no such reference – and the latter Clause generally relates
to contact from journalists during the newsgathering process. There was
therefore no breach of Clause 12 or Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
19. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
20. N/A
Date
complaint received: 11/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2022
Back to ruling listing