Resolution
Statement – 01178-22 Beswick v manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. James
Beswick complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
manchestereveningnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “New Highway Code rule means drivers can be
fined £200 for listening to music”, published on 27 January 2022.
2. The
article reported on recent changes to the Highway Code which would affect
motorists and focused on the introduction of a fine should a driver be caught
changing music on their phone. The original headline was updated to “New
Highway code rule says drivers must change how they listen to music”. The
sub-headline said “All the changes come into place at midnight”. The article
also included a video which described some of the new DVLA rules and driving
laws being introduced in 2022.
3. The
original headline was repeated as an image caption and the image displayed a
car steering wheel which had inbuilt controls to change music. The article
claimed, "All drivers in the UK have been warned about listening to music
in their car" and "People have been warned that, if caught changing a
song, they risk an immediate £200 fine". The end of the article clarified
the rule: "New laws aimed at cutting out dangerous driving now state that
people changing the song on their phone while they drive can be hit with a
fine”. The article was promoted with a Facebook post which included the
original headline and image of the steering wheel, and a tweet which stated the
changes came in at midnight.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as he
considered the original headline “New Highway Code rule means drivers can be
fined £200 for listening to music” to be misleading. He said it was not
supported by the text of the article as listening to music was not against the
new Highway Code rule, and there was no reference to “music” in the new rules.
He further believed the updated headline “New Highway code rule says drivers
must change how they listen to music” was also misleading and not supported by
the article as he said the new rule related specifically to the use of mobile
phones to change music and that the article only made this clear towards the
end of the article.
5.
Furthermore, he believed the claim in the body of the article that "All
drivers in the UK have been warned about listening to music in their car” was
misleading as, again, the new rules did not specifically mention music. He also said the article’s claim that
"People have been warned that, if caught changing a song, they risk an
immediate £200 fine" - which appeared as the original headline - was
misleading for the same reasons.
6. He
also believed the image was misleading as it showed controls on the steering
wheel, whereas the fine only applied to those who were using their phones to
control audio. In addition, the complainant said that the tweet was inaccurate
as the changes would come into effect from 29 January 2022, not midnight. He
further stated that there was no further
information about when the changes would come into effect in the body of
the article.
7. The
publication accepted that if the two previous versions of the headlines were
read in isolation, readers would need
further clarity on the rule change. It changed the headline to “Highway Code
warning to drivers who stream music in their car” and amended the disputed
statement within the article to “People caught using their mobile phone to
change the song could be fined up to £200.” It further published a
clarification on Facebook and a footnote correction which said:
“An
earlier version of this article included a headline and sentence which may have
misled readers about the circumstances in which a driver could be fined when
streaming music. The current version has clarified this point.”
8. The
complainant said that, given the article referred to a change to the Highway
Code which had been and gone, the article should be removed and a new
clarification post published on Facebook. He also said that he still had
concerns about the opening sentence: “All drivers in the UK have been warned
about listening to music in their car” as he considered the majority of the
article, which detailed several alterations to the Code, was not about the
change described in the headline.
9. The
publication did not accept that it was appropriate to remove the online
article.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
10. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
11.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication apologised for its oversight in
relation to the tweet and offered to publish a correction on Twitter.
12. The
complainant did not consider the clarifications to be of suitable prominence
and said that the tweet should have been published immediately after
recognising the oversight. He provided a list of changes which he said would
resolve his complaint. These included: changing the headline to “People caught
using their mobile phone to change song whilst driving could be fined up to
£200”; changing the sub-headline to a clarification; removing instances on the
homepage and social media platforms where the steering wheel image was paired
with the article; posting a new clarification post on Twitter and Facebook
clarifying the changes made to the article using the following text: “This
article has been updated as it may have previously misled readers about the
circumstances in which a driver could be fined when streaming music”; and
commit to reviewing existing articles pertaining to the Highway Code to
identify any similar issues.
13. The
publication agreed to change the headline and add a clarification below the
video in line with its style which said: “This article has been updated as some
readers may have been misled about the circumstances in which a driver could be
fined when streaming music.” It agreed to remove the steering wheel image, and
to publish new social media posts with amended wording in line with its style:
"This article has been updated as some readers may have been misled about
the circumstances in which a driver could be fined when streaming music.” The
publication also said it had not received any other complaints in relation to
accuracy about other articles relating to the Highway Code but it remained
happy to investigate and address any specific complaint.
14. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
15. 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: 27/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/05/2022
Back to ruling listing