Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02512-21 Mitchell v Sunday Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. Scott
Mitchell complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Sunday Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Boris has betrayed my Babs / You promised Babs funding..
so pay it Boris”, published on 31 January 2021.
2. The
complainant was the husband of the late Dame Barbara Windsor. The article
reported on comments he made regarding government spending on research into
dementia. The front page of the newspaper featured a reference to the article:
“Boris has betrayed my Babs; star’s widower blasts PM” and directed readers to
page 9 for the full article. The main article repeated that the complainant had
“blasted Boris Johnson”, described his “fury”, and that he had “hit out” after
seeing the figures spent on dementia funding. The article also included the
following quotes attributed to the complainant: “It’s disappointing to see the
Government is not doing more for people affected, despite the promises he made
to me and Barbara in 2019 […] While I fully understand the Government has had
to prioritise dealing with the pandemic – and my heart goes out to every person
affected by the virus – we cannot lose sight of the need to find life changing
treatments for people affected by dementia. It is one of the UK’s leading
causes of death, and will continue to be so without greater research
investment. While we knew nothing could be done to save Barbara from this cruel
condition, we were passionate about making sure action would be taken to save
other families from the heart break it causes. I worry we are moving backwards,
rather than forwards. More than a year ago, the Government promised to double
its funding for dementia research yet we have seen no further commitment to
this pledge. So I’m asking people to sign Alzheimer’s Research UK’s petition
calling on the Government to deliver on its promise.”
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Barbara Windsor's distraught
husband blasts Boris Johnson for breaking dementia vow” on 30 January in
substantially the same format, with the exception of the word “fury”.
4. The
complainant said that the article inaccurately portrayed his emotions and the
quote he had given to the newspaper: he denied that his comments expressed
feelings of “betrayal” or “fury”. He said he had chosen to use the term
“disappointing” deliberately so as not to convey anger, and that he could not
be described as having “blasted” the Prime Minister. He said he had not
employed any of those terms.
5. The
complainant provided IPSO his correspondence with the publication prior to the
publication of the article. He had been asked for a comment on recent
government spending on research into dementia, which he had provided via a
charity. This was included in the article, with only minor stylistic
amendments. In correspondence with the journalist, the complainant had singled
out the part of his statement relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and said it was
important that it was printed in its entirety as he did not want to dismiss the
impact of Covid-19. The complainant asked the publication if there were any
“shock headlines” and was informed that the headline would be: “You promised
Babs funding...so pay it Boris”. The complainant replied that he hoped it would
be clear that these were not his own words, to which the publication responded
that his words would be “exactly as you said them”.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the complainant’s
quote was produced in full in the article and would allow readers to take their
own view on his comments, and therefore the article had clearly distinguished
between comment, conjecture and fact. It also said that the disputed words were
widely used tabloid terms, and that they accurately reflected the quote he had
given. It noted that the complainant had expressed concerns regarding the
undelivered promise on funding for dementia, and had commented that the
Government was “moving backwards, rather than forwards” and there was “no
further commitment to the pledge” which the publication said could be
characterised as criticism. It also noted he had observed that the Government
was “still not doing more despite the promises made” and ultimately called on
the public to petition the government to “deliver on its promise”. It said that
this could be summarised as saying that the complainant felt “betrayed”. The
newspaper said that when informed of the headline for page 9, the complainant
had commented that it did not reflect his exact words but that “hopefully that
will be clear that it's not my actual words” and that it “should be ok”, which
the publication took as consent to publish the headline.
7. The
publication offered to remove the terms disputed by the complainant from the online
article, and amend the headline to read: “Barbara Windsor's husband
disappointed with Boris Johnson for breaking dementia vow” and text to state:
“Barbara Windsor's husband is disappointed with Boris Johnson for betraying the
late star after Alzheimer's funding plunged.”
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
8. Editors
have latitude in how they characterise or present source material, so long as
they do not distort it in a way that breaches Clause 1. The complainant denied
that his comments expressed “fury” or “betrayal”; he also denied having
“blasted” the prime minister. The complainant said that the publication was
well aware of his position before publication, both from the statement he had
provided (which formed the subject of the article) and from the correspondence
he had with the publication before publication.
9. The
article contained the full quote that had been provided by the complainant.
This meant that readers would be aware of what the complainant had said. The
Committee emphasised however that this was not in itself sufficient to correct
any characterisation that distorted the sentiments expressed by the
complainant.
10. The
Committee considered each of the terms in turn, starting with “fury”, used in
the print version of the article. It noted that the complainant had provided
the publication with a statement which used the milder term “disappointment” to
convey his feelings on the matter. He had emphasised, in the statement and in
the separate correspondence with the publication, that he acknowledged the
impact of Covid-19 on potential funding. The subject of the complainant’s
comments, the funding for treatment of dementia, was highly personal to the
complainant as it was a condition from which his late wife had suffered and, in
the statement he provided to the publication, the complainant was careful in
expressing his feelings on the subject. While recognising, as stated above, the
right of editors to exercise latitude in presenting material for publication,
the Committee was not able to identify grounds to support the characterisation
of the complainant’s comments as expressing “fury”. It concluded that this
reference was a distortion of the complainant’s position in breach of Clause
1(i). The distortion was significant in light of the subject matter and
required correction under Clause 1(ii).
11. The
Committee next considered the use of the term “betrayed”. The Committee noted
that the complainant had expressed disappointment that “the Government is not
doing more for people affected, despite the promises [the Prime Minister] made
to me and Barbara in 2019”. While the Committee acknowledged that the
complainant had not used the word "betrayed” in his statement, it noted
that he had made the point that the Government had promised to double its
funding but had failed to show commitment to the pledge. The Committee found
that to characterise this sentiment as feeling “betrayed” was not a significant
distortion of the complainant’s position, particularly as the complainant’s
comment had been included in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
12. The
Committee finally considered the terms “hit out” and “blasted”. It considered
that these were general terms that imply criticism. Where the complainant had
referred to the Prime Minister in his statement in critical terms for not committing
to a promise he had made, the characterisation of the complainant's reaction as
having “hit out” or “blasted” him was not a significant distortion of his
position. There was no breach of Clause
1 with regard to these terms.
Conclusions
13. The complaint
was partly upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
14.
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.
15. The
Committee found that the publication did not take the necessary care when
characterising the complainant’s statement as it did not reflect the words
which had been chosen by complainant, which rendered the article a misleading
distortion of his comments. However, the Committee recognised that this
represented a fine judgment. It also noted that the article had quoted the
complainant’s comments, putting them on record. In these circumstances, the
Committee concluded that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a
correction making clear that the complainant denied that his comments expressed
“fury” or that he felt “furious” about the matters discussed in the statement.
16. The
Committee then considered the placement of the correction. Whilst part of the
article had appeared on the front page, the distorted information had appeared
on page 9of the print newspaper. The Committee was satisfied that publication
of the correction in the established corrections and clarifications column
would represent due prominence. The wording of the correction should 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.
Date
complaint received: 08/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/07/2021
Back to ruling listing