Resolution Statement – 05628-21 Agyen v Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Lisa Agyen complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “We can't let selfish idiots who don't
want free Covid vaccines that scientists worked around the clock to develop
hold us hostage”, published on 19 May 2021.
2. The article appeared as part of a regular column, and was
an opinion piece about individuals who refuse Covid-19 vaccinations. The
article included the following statement: “In London, where I live, there are
already hundreds of cases of the Indian variant. And that’s not because of
people returning from the subcontinent: it’s because too few residents have had
the jab.”
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format under the headline “SARAH VINE: We can't let selfish idiots who
don't want free Covid vaccines that scientists worked around the clock to
develop hold us hostage”.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1, as it was not the case that the “hundreds of cases of the
Indian variant” in London were due to “too few residents” being vaccinated as
opposed to “people returning from the subcontinent”. She said that this was not
the case because: not all of those who are capable of transmitting the virus
had been, at the time of the article’s publication, invited to be vaccinated;
vaccinations do not entirely remove the risk of transmission; and it had been
demonstrated that travellers returning to the UK had indeed returned with the
variant.
5. The publication said it did not accept a breach of the
Code. It said that, of the 400 cases of the Delta variant which had been
identified in London, only a quarter had been directly linked with travel
abroad. It also noted that, at the time of publication, London had a
vaccination uptake which was lower than the rest of the country. It went on to
point out that the sentence identified by the complainant as inaccurate did not
state that the rise in cases were due to people refusing to be vaccinated, and
that the article did not claim that vaccination would eliminate transmission of
Covid-19. Rather, it was the columnist’s view that vaccination offered “a way
out” of the pandemic.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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.
Mediated Outcome
7. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
8. The publication offered to print the following
clarification, in its regular Corrections & Corrections column in print and
online:
An opinion piece on May 17 about vaccine refusal said that
the number of ‘Indian variant’ cases in London had increased because ‘too few
residents have had the jab.’ While vaccine uptake in London for the first nine
priority groups was lower than in the rest of England, we are happy to clarify
that there was no intention to suggest that all of these ‘Indian variant’ cases
were linked to vaccine refusal.
9. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her satisfaction.
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 19/05/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/06/2021
Back to ruling listing