Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01695-21 Parrott v
Norwich Evening News
Summary of Complaint
1. Kezia Parrott complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Norwich Evening News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “NHS Trust has made a real boob of its call for gender-neutral language”,
published on 15 February 2021.
2. The article was a comment piece which reported on recent
guidance from Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust regarding
terminology when referring to pregnancy and childbirth. The article stated that
“breast-feeding” or “breast milk” seemed “like perfectly acceptable words” but
that the Trust had said were “no longer acceptable. Instead we must start
saying ‘chest feeding’ or ‘chest milk’ to be more inclusive”. The article
quoted from the Trust’s guidance which stated it was “taking a gender-additive
approach” and that this meant “a gender additive approach means using
gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure
that everyone is represented and included”. The article described this as
“clear as day”.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format under the headline “Trust has made a real boob of its call for
gender-neutral language”.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 as it did not accurately report the guidance issued by the
Trust. In fact, the guidance stated that the terms “chest feeding” or “chest
milk”, among other gender neutral terminology, were to be used “for the
production of documents, protocols and communications” and “when discussing
pregnancy, birth and parenting at a population level (for example, at meetings,
study days or antenatal parent education)”. The guidance went on to state that
“these language changes do not apply when discussing or caring for individuals in
a one-on-one capacity where language and documentation should reflect the
gender identity of the individual. When caring for cis women it is good
practice to use terminology that is meaningful and appropriate to the
individual; this may include terms such as woman, mother or breastfeeding”. It
also noted that at population level, the terms should be additive, rather than
replace gendered terms, for example “breast/chest feeding” rather than “breast
feeding” or “chest feeding” alone. The complainant said that it was therefore
wrong to report that the terms “breast-feeding” or “breast milk” were “no
longer acceptable”, as these terms would be appropriate in many settings and
the correct terminology would vary depending on the person seeking medical
care.
5. The complainant also said that the article discriminated
against the transgender community by publishing inaccuracies, and inciting
hatred and ridicule in breach of Clause 12.
6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that where the guidance had stated that it was not acceptable to use the
term “breast feeding” to certain individuals, it was not inaccurate to report
that “breast-feeding” or “breast milk” were “no longer acceptable”. However, on
receipt of the complaint and prior to IPSO’s investigation, it added the
following clarification as a footnote to the online article and offered to
publish it on page two, three, four or five of the print newspaper:
The Eastern Daily Press would like to make it clear the
guidance published by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust states
that the use of the expression 'breastfeeding' or 'breast milk' is only
unacceptable in certain specific circumstances. Its guidance says that
individuals may have preferred terminology for their own anatomy, or for
activities that they use their body for. And that these preferred terms should
be respected and used wherever possible. For example, some people may refer to
their 'chest' and 'chestfeeding' rather than their 'breasts' and 'breastfeeding'.
We are happy to clarify the situation and apologise for any confusion.
7. The publication said that the article referred to
language in a broad sense and did not refer to an individual’s gender identity
and therefore did not breach Clause 12.
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.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be
avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
8. The article had stated that Brighton and Sussex
University Hospitals NHS Trust had said the terms “breast-feeding” or “breast
milk” were “no longer acceptable”. It had also stated that ”we must start
saying ‘chest feeding’ or ‘chest milk’ to be more inclusive”. It was inaccurate
to report that the Trust had stated the terms “breast feeding” and “breast
milk” were not acceptable – the Trust’s guidance stated that these terms should
be used both in one-on-one sessions with cis-women and that breast/chest
feeding should be used at population level. The publication had not taken care
to accurately report the Trust’s guidance, and there was a breach of Clause
1(i).
9. The publication had published a clarification online, and
had offered to do the same in print. The clarification acknowledged that the
Trust guidance stated that the use of the terms were only unacceptable in
certain circumstances and that the guidance stated that individual’s preferred
terms should be used, which put the correct position on the record. The
clarification was offered on receipt of the complaint and therefore represented
due promptness. As the original article was published on page 19, the
publication’s offer to publish this before page five represented due
prominence. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
10. The Committee acknowledged that article may be considered
offensive by some readers, but made clear that the Editors’ Code does not
consider issues of taste or offence. Clause 12 does not apply to groups, but
instead to identifiable individuals. As the complainant was not complaining on
the behalf of an identifiable individual in the article, there was no breach of
Clause 12.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
12. The clarification which was offered clearly put the
correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence,
and should now be published.
Date complaint received: 15/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/07/2021
Back to ruling listing