06492-19 Kruft v express.co.uk

Decision: Breach - sanction: action as offered by publication

Decision of the Complaints Committee 06492-19 Kruft v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Michael Kruft complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Brexit betrayal: Johnson launches ruthless bid to ORDER rebel John Bercow’s departure”, published on 4 September 2019.

2. The article reported on the Conservative Party’s plan to replace the Speaker by fielding an alternative candidate for election in his constituency. Its headline stated that “Johnson launches ruthless bid to ORDER rebel John Bercow’s departure” and the text of the article also claimed that “Mr Hammond was, however, removed from Parliament after Mr Johnson became Prime Minister.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate as the Prime Minister cannot order the removal of the Speaker. He also said that it was inaccurate to report that Mr Hammond was removed from Parliament, as he said that he was actually sacked from the Government Cabinet.

4. The publication accepted that the article had contained inaccuracies. Upon receipt of the complaint the publication amended the headline to: “Brexit betrayal: Johnson launches ruthless bid to replace rebel John Bercow’s departure” and the reference to Mr Hammond being removed from Parliament was deleted. The publication also added the following clarifying footnote during the referral period:

A previous version of this article reported that Mr Johnson was planning a bid to "order rebel John Bercow's departure". The Prime Minister, however can not order the removal of the Speaker of the House.

The article also stated, that "Mr Hammond was, however, removed from Parliament after Mr Johnson became Prime Minister." In fact, Mr Hammond was sacked from the Government Cabinet, not removed from Parliament. We are happy to clarify this.

5. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication was made aware that Mr Hammond was not sacked from Parliament, as stated in the corrective footnote, but had in fact resigned. It amended the correction within a day of receiving this information so that it read:

A previous version of this article reported that Mr Johnson was planning a bid to "order rebel John Bercow's departure". The Prime Minister, however can not order the removal of the Speaker of the House.

The article also stated that "Mr Hammond was, however, removed from Parliament after Mr Johnson became Prime Minister." In fact, Mr Hammond resigned from the Government Cabinet, and was not removed from Parliament. We are happy to clarify this.”

6. The complainant did not accept the offer of resolution. He said this was not prominent enough and wanted a standalone article.

Relevant Code Provisions

7. 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. It was accepted by the publication that it was inaccurate to report that the Prime Minister planned to order the Speaker’s departure and that Mr Hammond had been removed from Parliament; it said that these inaccuracies had been published due to human error. This represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1(i). Reporting that the Prime Minister could order that the Speaker leave his office and that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had been removed from parliament represented significant inaccuracies which required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).

9. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate and amended it within a week of receiving the complaint and added a clarifying footnote. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication had been made aware of an inaccuracy within their correction and this was amended this within a day. The Committee considered that the wording identified the inaccuracies, set out the correct position and was offered promptly. Further, the Committee considered that the clarifying footnote represented due prominence, as it was clearly visible in the article. Therefore the Committee found that there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).

Conclusion

10. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).

Remedial Action

11. The Committee found that the correction previously offered by the publication was sufficient to correct the significant inaccuracies and no further action needed to be taken.

 

Date complaint received: 04/10/2019

Date decision issued: 15/01/2020


Back to ruling listing