Decision of the Complaints Committee 03125-15 Portes v
The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour’s £1,000 tax on
families”, published on 24 April 2015.
2. The article, published on the front page of the print
newspaper, reported on an Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis of the main
political parties’ tax proposals, in advance of the General Election.
3. The complainant said that the headline and the claim
in the opening sentence of the article, that “Ed Miliband would saddle every
working family with extra taxes equivalent to more than £1,000,” were
inaccurate. The taxes and levies proposed by the Labour Party would primarily
be raised from companies and the richest individuals; not only would they not
affect all families equally, many families would not be materially affected by
the taxes at all. Furthermore, the calculation was misleading because it related
only to “working households”, a statistical term for households in which all
individuals of working age are in work. Spread across all households in which
at least one adult was in work, the figure was approximately £600 per family.
4. The newspaper accepted that the passages complained of
were inaccurate. Labour planned to raise an additional £12 billion for the
Exchequer, and the newspaper had tried to make this figure more relevant to its
readers by showing the amount per “working family”, as defined by the Office of
National Statistics (ONS). However, in doing so it had inadvertently stated
that each family would face a £1,000 additional tax burden, which was untrue.
The newspaper said that the error was a regrettable one, and that staff had been
reminded by a senior editor of the dangers of misinterpreting statistics.
5. The newspaper published the following correction in
its Corrections & Clarifications column on its Letters page (page 24 in the
relevant edition) on 2 May:
We said that ‘Ed Miliband would saddle every working
family with extra taxes equivalent to more than £1,000’ (Labour’s £1,000 tax on
families, April 24). This was inaccurate. The calculation assumes that the
extra taxes are shared equally among what the Office of National Statistics
defines as ‘working households’ (where all those over the age of 16 are
working). In fact, as was explained elsewhere in our article, ‘the bulk of
Labour’s tax rises will come from a raid on the richest pension pots, a
‘mansion tax’ on properties worth more than £2 million, the re-introduction of
the 50p rate and additional levies on banks and tobacco firms’. Some of these
taxes and levies will only apply to companies, and the others will affect a
small minority of families, not “every working family”, as we reported.
6. It also amended the online article and added the
correction as a footnote.
7. The complainant was satisfied with the text of the
correction, but not with its prominence. He said that the appropriate placement
was the same as the original, inaccurate article. The newspaper should publish
the headline “Correction: Labour’s £1,000 tax on families” on its front page in
the same font size as the original headline, with the text of the correction
below.
8. The complainant said that corrections should reach all
readers of the original inaccuracy, to the greatest extent possible. “Due
prominence” does not always mean “equal prominence”, but the only way of
correcting a prominent front-page headline is with a front-page correction. While
a correction in a column on the Letters page was acceptable in many instances,
this was an exceptional case because of the nature of the inaccuracy and the
timing: in the run-up to an election.
9. The newspaper said that it had established its Corrections
& Clarifications column in 2013 on one of the most important and most-read
pages of the newspaper, the Letters page. It listed a number of benefits of the
column: it demonstrates the newspaper’s firm commitment to correcting errors;
makes corrections easy to find in a place which readers will go to; allows
readers to see what has been corrected from day to day; makes it easy for staff
to check daily for published corrections and so avoid repeating errors; helps
to ensure that corrections, once agreed, will appear in the newspaper in the
approved form; and is accompanied daily by the newspaper’s complaints policy
and procedures. For these reasons, this position gave corrections more
prominence than they might otherwise have on a page further forward in the
newspaper, the exact position of which could be variable depending on each
day’s layout.
10. The newspaper rejected any assertion that the
column’s positioning suggested that it was “hiding away” its corrections. It
said that the Letters page has long been one of the best-read in the newspaper
and that page, along with the Comment section, is the heart of the newspaper
and sets it apart from its rivals. Historically, a letter to the editor was the
primary way of complaining to a newspaper, and the newspaper observed that many
requests for corrections and clarifications still arrive in this format today;
there is an intrinsic link between corrections and letters. This link is
recognised by a number of publications that choose to publish their corrections
in this location. The newspaper said that the inaccuracy in this case had
caused no personal harm to an individual, and the article was not wholly
inaccurate, as the text of the article had set out the correct position.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. 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.
Findings of the Committee
12. While per-household or per-capita sums may be useful
in some instances for illustrative purposes, the headline and first sentence of
the article had gone further, suggesting that the Labour tax plan would
directly impose additional taxes on “every working family”. In fact, none of
the additional taxes listed in the article would directly affect all working
families. Some would affect a subset, and some were directed at corporations.
The correct information in this case was in the public domain and easily
accessible, and the headline and first paragraph of the article were clearly
inconsistent with the detail included in the remainder of the article. The way
in which the newspaper characterised the findings of the IFS report represented
a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, resulting in a
significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
13. Front pages are of particular importance to
newspapers as they provide a publication with an opportunity to communicate
with potential new readers. They are therefore valuable both commercially and
editorially, as a means of expression. Further, front pages generally inform
readers, using limited space, of the main news stories of that day.
14. There are circumstances in which a front-page
correction may be required by the Editors’ Code, regardless of the existence of
an established Corrections and Clarifications column. In deciding whether to
require such a correction, the Committee must act proportionately; front-page
corrections are generally reserved for the most serious cases.
15. The Committee considered whether this was one such
case. In assessing the requirement for “due prominence,” the Committee takes
into account both the prominence of the original article and the seriousness of
the breach. In general, the Committee welcomes established corrections columns
as an effective way of demonstrating a commitment to correcting errors when
they occur.
16. The Committee recognised the value of publishing the
correction in the newspaper’s established column; choosing to place some
corrections in another part of the newspaper could undermine the advantages of
having a consistent position for corrections. However, the Committee was
concerned that the newspaper had prominently published material which was so
plainly inaccurate. Given the nature and prominence of the original breach, the
prominence of the correction was not sufficient and therefore the requirements
of Clause 1 (ii) had not been met.
Conclusions
17. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
18. The inaccuracy which had been established required a
correction to remedy it. The newspaper had already published a correction,
amended the online article, and appended the correction as a footnote. The
Committee acknowledged that the newspaper had acted in good faith, attempting
to remedy the inaccuracy in a way which it believed complied with the terms of
the Code, and ensuring publication prior to the imminent General Election.
However, the Committee had determined that this correction was not duly
prominent; it therefore required further action in order to remedy the
established breach of the Code.
19. The correction should now be republished in the
Corrections and Clarifications column, with a reference to the correction on
the front page. The front-page reference should include the word “correction”
and refer to IPSO’s upheld ruling. It should make clear the subject matter of
the original article, and direct readers to the page on which the correction
could be found; it should be agreed with IPSO in advance. The correction itself
should include an acknowledgement that the correction was being republished
with a front-page reference following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation.
20. The Committee welcomed the amendments which the
newspaper had made to the online article; however, a stand-alone correction
should now also be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link on the
homepage. The link should remain on the homepage for a minimum of 48 hours; thereafter,
the correction should be archived in the usual way. This correction should link
to the amended article and make clear that it has been published following a
ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Date complaint received: 23/04/2015
Date decision issued: 11/06/2015