Resolution Statement – 00671-21 Charlesworth v
express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. John Charlesworth complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Fire alarm sounds at Houses
of Parliament as ‘smoke’ seen rising from building”, published on 24 January
2021.
2. The sub-heading of the online article reported that a
fire had broken out at the Palace of Westminster, “with an alarm sounding
across Westminster Bridge and smoke seen rising from the iconic London
landmark.”. The article reported that an eyewitness had posted footage of the
incident on social media, with the following caption: “There’s a fire alarm and
a lot of smoke coming out from Parliament in London.”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in
breach of Clause 1. He said that the
Palace of Westminster had confirmed that the “smoke” was not from a fire but
rather steam produced from generators, with the fire alarms part of a planned
drill.
4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article was updated
regularly, with a later version clarifying that the House of Commons had
confirmed it was in fact steam coming from the generators, and that the fire
alarms were being sounded as planned tests.
It said that the following footnote was appended to the piece recording
these alterations:
“A previous version of this article stated that there was a
Westminster fire. In fact, the 'smoke' was in fact steam coming off from the
generators. We are happy to clarify this.”
5. Whilst the complainant welcomed this addition, he did not
consider the amendment of the article and addition of a clarification footnote
to be adequate. He expressed concern that the headline still contained the word
“smoke” and that the article had been based upon the account of a single
individual, who later retracted their own statement regarding the incident.
6. In response, on 1 March, the publication offered to
remove the online article and published the following standalone correction:
“The original version of our article of 24 January
'WESTMINSTER FIRE: SMOKE SEEN RISING FROM HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT IN LONDON AS
ALARM SOUNDS', reported that there was a fire at Westminster. In fact, the
'smoke' was in fact steam coming off from the generators. The Commons confirmed
that it was “just steam” from generators, which was exacerbated by the cold
weather, and that the fire alarms in the Palace of Westminster were undergoing
planned tests throughout the day'. We are happy to clarify this.”
7. The complainant said this proposed action was
insufficient to resolving his complaint.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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.
Mediated Outcome
9. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
10. During IPSO’s investigation the newspaper offered to
share a link to the standalone correction on social media.
11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 24/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/03/2021
Back to ruling listing