Decision of the Complaints Committee -- 00579-20
Westmorland v kentlive.news
Summary of Complaint
1. Frazer Westmorland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that kentlive.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in:
2. The first article reported on the publication’s “Real
Schools Guide” which compiled data in order to rank state-funded primary
schools in Kent. The article reported that the “latest version [of the Guide]
was released in June 2019”. It went on to explain the methodology of the guide
and the 44 data points referenced, such as Key Stage 2 results, pupil-teacher
ratios and absence rates. The article reported that Key Stage 2 performance was
monitored by how many pupils were reaching the expected, or higher, standards
“in 2018 and how it compare[d] to 2017”. It then went on to list the top and
bottom schools in Kent, when compared by this ranking methodology.
3. The second article was published nine days later, and
revealed the results of the Real Schools Guide 2020. This article also included
the rankings based on the new data and the methodology as to how the guide was
compiled. It stated that Key Stage 2 performance was considered and was based
on how many pupils were reaching the expected, or higher, standards “in 2019
and how it compare[d] to 2017”.
4. The complainant said that the articles were inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 because the first article did not make clear that the Key
Stage 2 data was from 2018, and was therefore a year and a half out of date
from when the articles were published. He acknowledged that the date of the
data was included in the first article, but found that this was too far down
within the article and was therefore misleading. He also said that it was
misleading to describe the schools as the “best” and “worst” based on the
narrow range of data acquired by the Guide, and that “highest and lowest
ranked” would be more accurate.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It
said that the second article did include the 2019 Key Stage 2 data. It said the
first article had not, but it had not been available at that time, and once the
more recent data had become available the article had been updated. In any
event, the publication said that the complainant had acknowledged that this
information was included in both of the articles. Additionally, it said that
the decision to refer to the schools as “best” and “worst” was an editorial
decision which was not inaccurate within the context of the article, which made
clear it was about the Best Schools Guide.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee found that where each of the articles
clearly stated the methodology for the Real Schools Guide and both indicated
which year the relevant Key Stage 2 results came from, the article was not
inaccurate. It also found that the terms “best” and “worst” was a matter of
editorial discretion, and were not misleading in the context of an article
which clearly stated the basis for these rankings. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
9. N/A
Date complaint received: 31/01/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/04/2020
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
