Satisfactory
Remedy – 01945-22 Berry v elystandard24.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Drew
Berry complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
elystandard24.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Former Mepal Outdoor Centre at forefront of
new film”, published on 3rd March 2022.
2. The
online article reported on fundraising efforts by film makers, Fenland on Film,
to produce a film about the Mepal Outdoor Centre “in its heyday”. It reported
that the film makers were “compiling footage of the centre in the years it was
operational and before it was demolished in November last year”. It included
the comments made by the company on its Facebook page, and noted that plans
regarding the venue’s future were still under consideration by the local
authority.
3. The
complainant, the producer of the film, said the article was inaccurate, in
breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). The film was not about Mepal Outdoor Centre “in
its heyday”, nor was the production company compiling any footage from the
years when the centre was operation or before its demolition. The complainant’s
Facebook post, upon which the article was based, read: “Mepal Outdoor Centre –
‘The Penultimate Hour’ […] We shot a cartridge of Super 8 film in November last
year (just weeks before the centre was demolished) […] and we’re confident that
this will be an incredibly atmospheric and thought provoking entry to our film
series and one that will see the iconic structure (what was left of it)
captured for posterity in a way that nobody else has”. The complainant also
expressed concern that he had been given insufficient time to respond to
comment; a reporter had contacted him for comment, via both e-mail and Facebook
messenger, a number of hours before the article’s publication. He responded to
the reporter the next day.
4. The
publication said it had misunderstood the complainant’s public Facebook post.
It accepted that the film had not been recorded when the centre was
“operational”, rather it had been shot when the centre was closed and just weeks
before it was demolished. Once it had become aware of the error, the following
day, the publication had amended the online article to remove this information
and to include the further comments provided by the complainant.
5. In
addition, upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO, on 17th March 2022, the
publication also offered to publish the following apology and clarification to
the foot of the article:
“An
earlier version of this article said Fenland on Film was compiling footage of
the Mepal Outdoor Centre in its heyday and in the years it was operational and
before it was demolished. However, the film will be a brief look at the Mepal
Outdoor Centre site in its final days before the main buildings were demolished.
We are sorry for any confusion this may have caused and are happy to clarify
the position.”
6. Whilst
the complainant did not consider that the proposal was sufficient to resolve
his complaint, the publication published the apology and clarification on 25
March 2022.
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.
Outcome
7. IPSO
considered whether the actions taken by the publication amounted to a
satisfactory remedy of the complaint.
8. The
publication had removed the inaccurate information from the online article,
included comments provided by the complainant, and published a clarification.
This clarification, which included an apology, made the correct position clear:
Fenland on Film were not compiling footage of the Mepal Outdoor Centre in its
“heyday” and in the years it was operational, rather the film focused on the
Centre in the final days before it was demolished. This clarification had been
published promptly, upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO, and was
sufficiently prominent, appearing at the foot of the online article.
9. In
line with the provisions in Regulation 40 of IPSO’s Regulations; having taken
into account the nature of the complaint, and the actions taken by the
publication in response, the Committee concluded that the measures offered (and
then taken by the publication) were a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.
Date
complaint received: 07/03/2022
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/05/2022