· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00544-15 Walker v Daily Mirror
Summary
of complaint
1. Mark Walker complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “UKIP candidate shares race hate article on Facebook branding
mixed-race couples a ‘plague’”, published on 28 January 2015.
2. The article claimed that the complainant had
“used Facebook to circulate a bizarre message claiming the Israeli secret
service was behind the Charlie Hebdo atrocity in Paris – and insisting al-Qaeda
does not exist.”
3. The complainant said that he had not written this
post, he had merely “shared” it. He was concerned that the use of the word
“circulate” failed to make this clear, and that he had been portrayed as racist
and anti-Semitic as a result. He said that while the newspaper had contacted
the UKIP head office for comment prior to publication, it had not contacted him
directly.
4. The newspaper provided a link to the relevant post on
the complainant’s Facebook page, where it had been accompanied by the comment
“so sad but true”. The newspaper noted that the article had not stated that the
complainant had written the post himself.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee
6. The complainant accepted that he had shared the post
online; the article had not stated that he had written it. It was also
reasonable to assume from his comment that it was “so sad but true” that he had
endorsed the post’s contents. The Committee did not find that the use of the
word “circulate” implied that the complainant had written the post. There was
no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and the Committee did
not establish any significant inaccuracies which would require correction under
the terms of the Code.
7. Clause 2 requires an opportunity to reply in cases
where inaccuracies have been established. In the absence of any inaccuracies,
there was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 03/02/2015
Date decision issued: 23/04/2015