Decision of the Complaints Committee – 07156-19 Walters v express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Ailsa Walters 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 “Why are Man City fans booing Liverpool star James Milner in Vincent Kompany testimonial?”, published on 11 September 2019.
2. The article reported that footballer James Milner had been “booed by a smattering of Manchester City supporters when he touched the ball during Vincent Kompany’s testimonial.”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) as Mr Milner did not play at Mr Kompany’s testimonial and it was therefore impossible that he had been booed by fans. She also noted that the match was a testimonial, rather than a competitive match, which had a large impact on whether he would be jeered as it was for charity.
4. The publication did not accept that Clause 1 of the Code had been breached, though it accepted that the article was inaccurate. The article had been prewritten, based on previous games in which Mr Milner had been booed by Manchester City fans. In addition, the publication had relied on social media claims that Mr Milner had received abuse after leaving the team bus. The article had then been accidentally published. The publication had taken steps in order to stop this mistake from reoccurring, by sending a formal email to the journalist in question and a general email to the team to make them aware of the issue and to stop it from happening again. The article had been removed shortly after publication and the following correction was published after the complaint was referred by IPSO:
Correction - Man City fans boo James Milner - 19.09.19
In an article headlined 'Why are Man City fans booing Liverpool star James Milner in Vincent Kompany testimonial?' and published on September 11 2019 we claimed that James Milner was booed by Manchester City supporters when he 'touched the ball during the Vincent Kompany's testimonial.' To clarify, the match was between the Man City Legends and Premier League All Stars teams. The match was a celebration of Kompany's 11 years at Manchester City and to raise money for the charity 'Tackle 4 MCR' which campaigns to support homeless people in Manchester. James Milner was expected to appear as he was listed on the team sheet for the 'Man City Legends' though in fact he did not play. He has previously been booed by Manchester City supporters in their matches against Liverpool at the Etihad stadium in March 2017 and again in September 2017. In January 2019 he was again booed by Manchester City fans during the match against Liverpool. At the time of the Kompany testimonial match there were unconfirmed claims on social media that when James Milner had got off the Man City Legends' team bus he had received abuse. Those unconfirmed claims should not have formed the basis of the article and we apologise for that error. We are happy to set the record straight.
5. The complainant said that the correction was inadequate and did not put the correct position on record, as booing on previous occasions was not relevant to the article and therefore not to the correction either.
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 had reported that Mr Milner had been booed during a football game, despite Mr Milner not having played and not having been booed. The article had been written in advance of the game and had been published by mistake. This represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1(i).
8. The entire article centred on Mr Milner being booed whilst playing; this did not occur and therefore the article was significantly inaccurate. A correction was required under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
9. When alerted to the error, the article was removed from the website and the publication had published a correction, which was suitably prompt. However, the Committee did not consider that the published correction had clearly identified the inaccuracy being corrected or made the correct position clear in order to satisfy the requirements of Clause 1(ii). The wording also contained additional information regarding the reasons for the match and the previous times Mr Milner had been booed. The inclusion of this information, which was not required to correct the inaccuracy, further obscured the position. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
10. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i) and Clause 1(ii).
Remedial Action Required
11. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication. The nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
12. In circumstances where the publication had promptly published a correction, albeit that the wording was not suitable to satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (ii), the Committee considered that the publication of a further correction in the online corrections page was the appropriate remedy.
13. The wording should only include information required to correct the inaccuracy: that the article had been written before the match had taken place and had been published in error; and that the original article had reported that Mr Milner had played in the match when he did not, and that he had not therefore been booed. The wording should also state that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The full wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance.
Date complaint received: 12/09/19
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/04/20
Back to ruling listing