Decision of the Complaints Committee 02368-15 A woman v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Daily Telegraph had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
published on the newspaper’s website in March 2015.
2. The article was a short report on a public figure, and
noted that he had been accused of “making sexual advances towards a vulnerable
female constituent”; the complainant was that constituent.
3.The complainant was concerned that the article had inaccurately
reported that she had learning difficulties; in fact she has mental health
problems. She was further concerned that the inaccurate reporting was
discriminatory.
4. The newspaper acknowledged that the article had been
inaccurate; the journalist had made an unfortunate error. The newspaper
apologised to the complainant for the distress caused, although noted that
those who did not already know her would not be able to identify her from the
article. It removed all reference to her from the article, and offered to
append an explanatory footnote, including an apology for the error. It
originally offered to also publish an additional apology in the print
newspaper, but amended its offer of remedy on realising that the reference
complained of had not appeared in the print version of the article.
5. The complainant said that this offer could not remedy the
distress that had been caused to her. She did not want the footnote to be
published.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any
physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion,
sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided
unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s prompt recognition
that the article had been inaccurate, and the immediate steps it had taken to
amend the reference. The correct information was already in the public domain
and easily accessible; the newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy
of the article. The Committee found that the established inaccuracy gave a
significantly misleading impression of the complainant in what was clearly a
sensitive case. The inaccuracy required correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the
Code.
8. The reference to the complainant’s vulnerability was
genuinely relevant to the events reported. The reference to learning
difficulties was not prejudicial or pejorative; it was included in error, and
not in a way which discriminated against the complainant. There was no breach
of Clause 12.
Conclusions
9. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).
Remedial Action Required
10. The newspaper had already removed all reference to the complainant from the article and offered to publish a footnote. Given that the inaccuracy in this case was a reference to an anonymised person, and was not in the context of an in-depth analysis of the case, but in an update on the public figure’s career, a footnote was the appropriate remedy to the established breach of the Code. In normal circumstances the Committee would now require the publication of the footnote. However, this was a particularly sensitive case, and the complainant had made clear that she did not want a footnote added to the article. On this occasion, the offer of the footnote was sufficient. The newspaper was not required to publish it.
Date complaint received: 31/03/2015
Date decision issued: 15/06/2015