Decision of the Complaints Committee 03343-15 Johnson
v Mid Devon Advertiser
Summary of
complaint
1. Keith Johnson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Mid Devon Advertiser had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “2,500 sign campaign group’s petition”, published on 1
May 2015.
2. The article reported that an “NHS day of action” at
Newton Abbot, coordinated by campaign group 38 Degrees, had taken the number of
signatures on a “Save our NHS” petition up to 2,500.
3. The complainant, one of the local organisers of the
“NHS day of action”, said the newspaper had published inaccurate statements
made by a Conservative candidate in the general election, which misrepresented
the event. He expressed concern that the comments, which formed more than half
of the article, had strongly implied that their campaign had sought to
criticise the NHS, rather than to defend it from privatisation. He said the
inaccuracy had given the impression that the event organisers had deliberately
deceived their supporters with regards to the aims of the campaign.
4. The complainant noted that the article had stated that
the activists had planned to “rate election candidates’ pledges on the NHS
using an online tool”. He said the online aspect of the 38 Degrees campaign
recorded candidates’ responses to questions on the NHS; it had not formed part
of the petition.
5. The complainant also considered that the article had
falsely claimed that the event had been organised by the Green Party, and was
therefore party-political. He did not consider that this was a point for the
Green Party to complain about; it was 38 Degrees that had been affected by the
inaccurate reporting.
6. The complainant said in order for it to produce a
balanced, accurate article, the newspaper should have sought the comment of the
event organisers before publication.
7. The newspaper said it had published an article
publicising the NHS Day of Action the day before the event. The article had
included extensive quotations from a member of 38 Degrees, and had made clear
that the event concerned NHS privatization and funding freezes. To its
knowledge, it had never been stated explicitly that the event had been
organised by 38 Degrees alone, or in tandem with any other group.
8. The newspaper said there were six candidates for the
Teignbridge parliamentary seat, and the Conservative candidate was the only one
not to attend the NHS Day of Action. The newspaper said it approached the
Conservative candidate for comment in an effort to produce a balanced report,
as it considered that she should be given the opportunity to explain her
absence. It said the comments represented the candidate’s opinion, and were
attributed to her using quotation marks. The candidate had previously had talks
with 38 Degrees, and it therefore considered that she had a reasonable
understanding of the event. It said there was no reason for it to believe that
she had made an error in her description of the event, and so it had not
considered it necessary to check the accuracy of her comments.
9. The newspaper noted that the Green Party candidate had
attended the event, and it had not received a complaint from them with regards
to the Conservative candidate’s claim. It did not consider that the statement
that the event had been a joint venture between the Green Party and 38 Degrees
had any significant or misleading effect on the public. However, in light of
the complainant’s concerns, the newspaper offered to publish the following
paragraph in a forthcoming edition:
A popular petition resulting in 2,500 signatures,
collected as part of an NHS day of action, was solely organised by 38 Degrees
and was not a joint enterprise with the Green Party as we incorrectly published
in a story on May 1. We apologise for any confusion caused by this error.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. 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.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee
11. The article had stated that the organisers of the
event were “concerned about privatisation and funding freezes”. It had also
included a photograph of the event’s supporters wearing “I love the NHS”
t-shirts, and holding a sign saying “Save our NHS”. As such, the article had
not suggested, as the complainant had contended, that the event was critical of
the NHS.
12. Although the newspaper had reported comments made by
a Conservative candidate, in which she said she did not want to attend an event
“criticising” the NHS, the comments appeared in quotation marks and clearly
represented the candidate’s opinion. Taken in their full context, the Committee
did not consider that the publication of her comments was significantly misleading.
There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article in this
regard.
13. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that
the event was organised by 38 Degrees alone, and not by the Green Party as
suggested by the candidate quoted in the article. The article, however, had
also stated that the event was “coordinated by the 38 Degrees group”. Given
that the Green Party candidate had attended the event and that the statement
had appeared in quotation marks, the Committee did not consider that the
publication of the Conservative candidate’s assertion had been significantly
misleading. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to
publish a clarification on this point.
14. The Committee did not consider that the online aspect
of the campaign was a significant point that would require correction under the
terms of Clause 1. The complaint under Clause 1 was not upheld.
15. The complainant had also framed his concerns under
Clause 2. The terms of Clause 2, however, do not require that newspapers seek
comment before publication. Rather, they provide people with a fair opportunity
to respond to published inaccuracies. The Committee had not established the
existence of inaccuracies that would engage the terms of this Clause.
Conclusions
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 04/05/2015
Date decision issued: 19/06/2015