Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01442-21 Wood v
thetimes.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jackie Wood complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thetimes.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding,
Brighton’s trans-friendly midwives are told”, published on 9 February 2021.
2. The article reported on a document published by Brighton
and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust which set out the Trust’s policy on
gender inclusive language in its perinatal services. In addition to the
headline, the article reported that “Midwives have been told to say
‘chestfeeding’ instead of ‘breastfeeding’ and to replace the term ‘mother’ with
‘mother or birthing parent’ as part of moves to be more trans-friendly”. The
article gave several examples of terms that the policy said should be used, and
what these terms would replace: “‘breastmilk’ should be replaced with the
phrases ‘human milk’, breast/chestmilk’ or ‘milk from the feeding mother or
parent’”; “‘woman’ with ‘woman or person’ and ‘father’ with ‘parent’,
‘co-parent’ or “second biological parent”, depending on the circumstances”. The
article described the policy document as stating “that staff should not stop
using the word ‘woman’ or other terms describing motherhood but they should
consciously start adding in the word ‘people’ and other more inclusive
language” and that the language changes would “be implemented in the trust’s
webpages, leaflets and communications such as letters and emails. Staff will be
asked to use language that reflects people’s ‘own identities and preferences’
when talking to patients”. It also included a statement from the Trust which
noted that “Our chosen approach to inclusive language is additive rather than
neutral.”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. She said that the headline inaccurately reported the
Trust’s guidance, and that the terms “is now” and “are told” in the headline
implied that the use of inclusive language was imposed and compulsory, which
did not reflect the guidance. The complainant said that as the article had a
paywall, many readers, including her, would only have seen the headline and not
the rest of the article.
4. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the headline was supported by the text, which the complainant had not
read. It said the story explained at length that the proposed language was
additive rather than exclusive. It said that the article described what the new
instructions entailed and explained clearly the circumstances in which this
would apply, noting that it had reported that: “the language changes will be
implemented in the trust’s webpages, leaflets and communications such as
letters and emails. Staff will be asked to use language that reflects people’s
‘own identities and preferences’ when talking to patients”. The publication
also noted the “specific language replacements” included in the Trust’s mission
statement: "Previous: maternal consent New: informed consent Previous:
maternal notes New: hand-held notes Previous: Breastmilk New: Human milk or
breast/chestmilk or milk from the feeding mother or parent Previous: The value
of breastfeeding as protection, comfort and food New: The value of
breast/chestfeeding as protection, comfort and food". It said, therefore,
with this further context, the headline was not inaccurate.
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.
Findings of the Committee
5. The Committee noted that headlines summarise articles and
cannot be expected to include all the details of the story; however, the
requirement in Clause 1 to take care over accuracy applies to headlines as well
as articles. The Code is clear in its requirement that headline statements
should be supported by the text of the article. The Committee emphasised that
the body of the article cannot be relied upon to correct a misleading
impression given by a headline.
6. Although the complaint in this instance was solely
against the headline, the Committee considered the headline in the context of
the article as a whole. The headline had stated that “Brighton’s trans-friendly
midwives” had been told that “Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding”. The article
had stated that “Midwives have been told to say ‘chestfeeding’ instead of
‘breastfeeding’” and had described the policy document as stating that the
language changes would “be implemented in the trust’s webpages, leaflets and
communications such as letters and emails. Staff will be asked to use language
that reflects people’s ‘own identities and preferences’ when talking to
patients”. It included a statement from the Trust that “Our chosen approach to
inclusive language is additive rather than neutral.”
7. The Committee considered that the headline suggested that
the new policy required that the term “breastfeeding” could no longer be used
on its own and should be replaced universally by the term “chestfeeding” in all
of the Trust’s activities.
8. The Committee reviewed the guidance issued by the Trust.
The Committee noted that the guidance was concerned with communications at a
“population” and “departmental and Trust-wide level”. It proposed a range of
new terms on a “gender-additive” basis. This meant using “gender neutral
language alongside the language of womanhood”. One of the changes proposed was
the use of the full phrase “breast/chestfeeding” to replace “breastfeeding”.
9. The guidance also made clear that these new terms would not
apply “when discussing or caring for individuals in a one-on-one capacity” and
in those circumstances staff should use language that reflected the
individual’s own identity and preferences. In neither case did the guidance
advocate a universal replacement of the word “breastfeeding” with the word
“chestfeeding” on its own. Rather it suggested that the term
“breast/chestfeeding”, not just “chestfeeding” alone, should replace
“breastfeeding” in the Trust’s literature and communications, or that a bespoke
approach be taken when discussing or dealing directly with particular
individuals.
10. The headline stated simply that “breastfeeding” would be
replaced by “chestfeeding” which was not the case. The publication argued that,
notwithstanding the fact that the complaint was against the headline, the
reference was clarified by the text. For example the article had contained a
quote from the Trust explaining that the language terms were additive in
nature. It also stated that “the language changes will be implemented in the
trust’s webpages, leaflets and communications such as letters and emails. Staff
will be asked to use language that reflects people’s ‘own identities and
preferences’ when talking to patients”. The Committee emphasised that it will
always consider headlines in the context of the full article but that the text
cannot be relied upon to correct a misleading headline. The Committee also
noted that the text repeated the misleading claim, saying that midwives had
been “told to say ‘chestfeeding’ instead of ‘breastfeeding’”.
11. The Committee found that the headline claim represented
a failure to take care not to publish misleading information and breached
Clause 1(i). The suggestion that the term “breastfeeding” should universally no
longer be used was significant and required clarification under Clause 1(ii).
As no clarification had been offered, this represented a further breach of
Clause 1(ii).
Conclusion
12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
13. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the
Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the
publication of a correction and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
14. The Committee considered that the publication did not
take the necessary care when summarising the Trust’s policy in the article
headline and that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a correction to
put the correct position on record. A correction was considered to be
sufficient, as the claim was explained further in the article giving context to
the headline.
15. The Committee then considered the placement of this
correction. This correction should be added to the article – either directly
following the headline if the headline remains unaltered, or as a footnote if
the headline is altered - and appear as a standalone correction in the online
corrections and clarifications column. This wording should include information
required to correct the misleading information: that the term “breastfeeding”
would not be universally be replaced by the word “chestfeeding” alone, but that
only in documents and at population level “breast/chestfeeding” would be used.
The wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear
that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. If the publication intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction
should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments that have been
made.
Date complaint received: 11/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/10/2021
Back to ruling listing