Decision of the Complaints Committee - 06211-19 Mackenzie
v Press & Journal
Summary of complaint
1. Valerie MacKenzie complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Press & Journal had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Thousands
take part in march through city” published on 19 August 2019.
2. The article reported on a Scottish Independence march
which took place in Aberdeen on 17 August 2019. It reported that the
pro-Independence group that organised the march estimated that 12,000 people
had taken part. A Unionist group was reported as having estimated that only
2,563 pro-Independence marchers had attended the event. The article also
reported on a smaller pro-Union counter-demonstration and showed a photograph
of it. The photograph was captioned: “Around 2,500 pro-Union supporters turned
out for a counter-rally”.
3. The complainant, who attended the main march, said that
this picture caption was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said that this
was because the number of pro-Union counter-demonstrators was around 30 rather
than the reported figure of 2,500. The complainant was also concerned that the
publication had a pro-Union bias. She also said that the inaccuracy and the
decision to report the estimates of the Unionist group further displayed this
bias. Finally, she was concerned by the fact that this Unionist group had been
given a platform as she disagreed with its views.
4. The publication accepted that the photo caption was
inaccurate and said it was due to human error, namely the mistaking of the pro-Union
group’s estimate of the Independence march for an estimate of the group’s own
counter-demonstration. The publication stated that the inaccuracy, whilst
regrettable, was not significant. It said that the photo of the
counter-demonstrators showed a much smaller number than the caption reported,
and that the article accurately presented the source and context of the 2,500
figure and so the incorrect status of the caption would be clear to most
readers. In any event, the publication stated that they had complied with
Clause 1(ii) by taking prompt steps to correct, explain and apologise for the
erroneous estimate. The publication issued the following correction on page 2
the day after the original article was published:
In a picture caption on page five of yesterday’s edition, it
was wrongly stated that “around 2,500” pro-Union supporters attended a
counter-rally against a pro-independence march in Aberdeen on Saturday. That
was in fact the number of people that the pro-Union group estimated had joined
the main independence march. We are happy to correct this error and apologise
for any confusion caused.
5. Three days later, after having been able to establish a
formal estimate, the publication issued a further clarification that made clear
the true number of counter-demonstrators. It stated:
In a picture caption on page five of Monday’s edition, it
was wrongly stated that “around 2,500” pro-Union supporters attended a
counter-rally against a pro-independence march in Aberdeen on Saturday. In fact
there were estimated to be around 40-60. The 2,500 figure – as correctly stated
in the article the caption accompanied – was the number of people that the
pro-Union group estimated had joined the main independence march. We are happy
to correct this error and apologise for any confusion caused.
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.
Findings of the Committee
7. The publication accepted that the Unionist estimate of
the number of pro-Independence marchers was mistaken for an estimate of the
number of counter-demonstrators. Reporting this represented a failure to take
care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1(i).
8. Reporting that 2,500 counter-demonstrators attended the
march when in fact the accepted figure was 40-60 was a significant inaccuracy
due to the large difference between the reported and actual figure. This was
significantly inaccurate as to the scale of the counter demonstration.
Moreover, the article was centred on these two demonstrations and the relative
number of people taking part in them. Therefore a correction was required under
the terms of Clause 1(ii).
9. The corrections published identified the inaccuracy and
put the correct position on record. They were also offered promptly – 1 and 3
days after the original article respectively. This was done with due
prominence, appearing on Page 2 in the regular corrections column, with the
original article having appeared on page 4 and 5. The Committee welcomed the
fact that the publication, on receiving the estimate of the number of counter
protestors, had published a second correction to make this clear.
10. The Code makes clear that publications have the right to
be partisan, to give its own opinion and to campaign, so long as the Code is
not otherwise breached. Therefore, the fact that the complainant believed that
the publication displayed a pro-Union bias did not engage the terms of the
Code. Moreover, newspapers are free to report the opinions of others and to
choose what they publish. In this case, the complainant’s concern that the
publication had given the Unionist group she disagreed with a platform did not
engage the terms of the Code.
Conclusion
11. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
12. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
13. The corrections published by the publication identified
the inaccuracy, explained it and set out the correct position, and was offered
promptly and with due prominence. This was sufficient to avoid a breach of
Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 19/08/2019
Date decision issued: 13/11/2019