·
Decision of
the Complaints Committee
02402-15 Rodu
v The Daily Telegraph
1. Brad Rodu
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily
Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Four in 10 teenage e-cigarette users would not have smoked,
warn health experts” (online) and “Teenagers putting their health at risk by
trying e-cigarettes”, published on 31 March 2015.
2. The
article reported the findings of research into the use of e-cigarettes by
teenagers, which was published in the British Medical Council’s Public Health
journal. The online article’s sub-headline stated that “teenagers who would
never have smoked are now putting themselves at long term risk by using
e-cigarettes, a new study suggests”. A photograph on the online article was
captioned: “Nearly half of e-cigarette users would not have taken up smoking, a
new study suggests”, and the first sentence of the online article stated that
“Hundreds of thousands of teenagers who would never have started smoking are
now using e-cigarettes, putting themselves at risk of long-term damage, health
experts have warned”. The print article had the same first sentence, with the
omission of the word “health” before “experts”, and the word “now” before
“using”. Both versions of the article went on to explain that “nearly 40
percent of [14 to 17 year olds who had acquired e-cigarettes] had never smoked,
or had tried smoking but did not like the sensation. The findings suggest that
a large number of youngsters who use e-cigarettes would never have taken up
smoking, but are now at risk of becoming addicted to nicotine”.
3. In
relation to the online article, the complainant said that the headline claim
that “four in 10 teenage e-cigarette users would not have smoked, warn health
experts” was inaccurate, and that the photograph caption and the first sentence
of the article were also inaccurate.
The research survey had not identified teenagers who had accessed
e-cigarettes, but would never have started smoking; it identified teenagers who
had never smoked, or had tried smoking but did not like it.
4. In
addition, the complainant said that in conducting the research, the scientists
had surveyed teenagers and asked “Have you ever bought or tried electronic
cigarettes?”. However, the newspaper reported that the survey had determined
the proportion of teenagers who “used e-cigarettes”. The complainant said that
this was a misrepresentation of the findings of the research; “now using
e-cigarettes” implied a continuing usage, which was significantly different to
having ever tried or bought e-cigarettes. The complainant raised a further
concern that the article suggested that e-cigarettes were a gateway to
cigarette smoking.
5. The
newspaper said that referring to those who said that they had bought or tried
e-cigarettes as people who had “used e-cigarettes”, was not significantly
misleading, and noted that the journal article had stated that “it seems
reasonable to assume that many teenagers who are motivated to purchase an
e-cigarette would also be interested in trying it”. The article reported the
finding of the research that “nearly 40% of those teenagers had never smoked,
or had tried smoking but did not like the sensation”, and went on to claim that
“the findings suggest that a large number of youngsters who use e-cigarettes
would never have taken up smoking”. The newspaper said that this was presented
as a conjecture, the basis of which was made clear in the article. Furthermore,
it was a conjecture that the newspaper was entitled to make, and was not
significantly misleading about the study’s findings. In relation to the
headline, the newspaper said that the conjectural basis of the link between
e-cigarette use and teenagers “who would never have smoked” was clarified by
the text of the article, and also by the article’s stand first, which qualified
the claim with the words “…a new study suggests”. It said that the claim that “hundreds of
thousands of teenagers who would never have started smoking are now using
e-cigarettes” was an extrapolation from the study’s findings to a national
level. The newspaper denied that the
article had suggested e-cigarettes were a gateway to cigarette smoking.
6. In
response to this complaint, the newspaper amended the headline of the online
article to “Teenagers putting their health at risk by trying e-cigarettes,
experts claim”. The first sentence was amended to say “…a study suggests”,
where it had previously said “…health experts have warned”. The article did not
make clear that it had been amended in this manner, and the caption on the
photograph was not amended.
Relevant Code
Provisions
7. 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. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be
agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The
Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment,
conjecture and fact.
Findings of
the Committee
8. The claim
that “four in 10 teenage e-cigarette users would not have smoked”, had not been
made in the research or by the scientists, nor was it an inference that could
be reasonably drawn from its findings. For the individuals surveyed to respond
that they had never smoked, or that they had tried smoking but disliked it, did
not imply that they would never have smoked. In coming to this view, the
Committee noted that the survey participants were 14-17, with 97.6% of
respondents being 14-16. At this age range, the inference from a respondent’s
claim not to have smoked, to the conclusion that he/she would never have smoked
was particularly weak. It was therefore misleading to report that the research
had found that four in ten e-cigarette users “would not have smoked”.
9. The
Committee rejected the newspaper’s argument that this claim had been presented
as the newspaper’s own conjecture. Although the sub-headline and the caption to
the photograph on the online article presented this claim as something
“suggested” by the research, the headline and first sentence of the article had
referred to the claim as having been “warned” by health experts. Both versions of the article went on to
describe the findings of the research, and claimed that they “suggest that
large number of youngsters who use e-cigarettes would never have taken up
smoking”. The Committee acknowledged that in this sentence, the newspaper had
presented the claim as a conjecture, and referred to “a large number” rather
than “four in ten”. Nevertheless, this did not cure the misleading impression
left by the headline and first sentence in the online article, nor the
misleading impression left by the first sentence of the print article. Both
versions of the article contained a significantly misleading statement, which
demonstrated a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading
information, and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
10. The
Committee acknowledged that the newspaper had made some amendments to the
online article. However, it was not made clear that these amendments had been
made, and why. Furthermore, the caption of the photograph had not been amended.
The article had not been corrected under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
11. The
article referred to the teenagers who had said that they had accessed
e-cigarettes as people who “use e-cigarettes”, but also explained that the
survey had “found that one in five [14 to 17-year-olds] had acquired
e-cigarettes”. In addition, the Committee noted that the research article
stated that “it seems reasonable to assume that many teenagers who are
motivated to purchase an e-cigarette would also be interested in trying it”. In
these circumstances, referring to people who “use” e-cigarettes was not a
significantly misleading way of reporting on the findings of the research.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. The
article did not claim that e-cigarettes were a gateway to cigarette smoking, or
that this had been a finding of the research. The article did not contain the
alleged inaccuracy, and this aspect of the complaint did not raise a breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusions
13. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. The newspaper
was required to correct the claims that “four in 10 teenage e-cigarette users
would not have smoked, warn health experts” and that the research had warned
that “hundreds of thousands of teenagers who would never have started smoking
are using e-cigarettes…experts have warned”. The correction should make clear
that the researchers had not made this claim, but had determined the proportion
of teenage e-cigarette users who had never smoked, or had smoked but did not
like it. The article was on page 12 of the newspaper, and the correction should
be published on this page, or further forward in the newspaper. The correction on the online article should
make clear that the article had since been amended, and should be published at
the foot of the online article.
Date
complaint received: 31/03/2015