Decision of the Complaints Committee – 07964-19 Desbrow v
The Herald
Summary of Complaint
1. Darrell Desbrow complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Scots home prices grow three
times annual rate of England / Scots house prices rise as London drags UK
down”, published on 18 July 2019.
2. The article reported on the rise in property prices in
Scotland. The article started on the front page, and then continued on page 3.
On the third page of the newspaper there was a table that showed property
prices in council areas in Scotland in May 2018, followed by May 2019 and a
third column explaining the difference of property prices as a percentage
between these two years. The text of page three also cited several examples of certain
areas and referenced the rise and fall in monetary terms, for example “the
biggest boost seen in North Ayrshire, where prices jumped by 8.2% to £111,000
in the year to May 2019”.
3. The complainant said that the accompanying table was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), as the columns had been labelled
incorrectly; the May 2018 column was actually the prices for May 2019 and vice
versa.
4. The publication accepted that the version of the
newspaper the complainant had received was inaccurate. It said that the
inaccuracy had been discovered during the printing run and amended so that the
dates that headed the table were the correct way round. This meant that some of
the newspapers had the accurate table and others were inaccurate. The
publication said that they acted promptly in correcting the error, and did not
believe that the error was significant. A third column in the table explained
the difference in percentage between the two sums, so readers would not be
misled by the accurate change of property prices in Scotland, and could have
inferred that the dates were the wrong way round. In addition, the accompanying
article quoted the correct figures from the table, attributing the correct sum
to the correct year. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill the newspaper
offered to print the following in their corrections and clarifications column ,
which normally appears on page two:
In our story about property prices of July 18 last year
early copies of the edition had dates for two tables showing rises and falls in
house values the wrong way round. The error was corrected on the print run and
the tables were put in the correct order:
May 2019 first, May 2018 second.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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
6. The table under complaint had been amended as soon as the
publication became aware of it; it was changed during the print run and only
the earliest versions of the newspaper had the incorrect table headings. In the
newspapers that did contain the inaccurate table headings, there was no
significant inaccuracy in the context of the overall article as the table
explained the difference of property prices as a percentage and the
accompanying article gave specific examples which attributed the correct sum to
the correct year. In this context readers would not be misled by the inaccurate
headings of the first two columns of the table. As such, the error did not
constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and was not
significant to the overall article as to require a correction. There was no
breach of Clause 1(i) or 1(ii). The Committee, however, welcomed the correction
as offered by the publication.
Conclusions
7. N/A
Remedial Action Required
8. N/A
Date complaint received: 11/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/04/2020