Decision of the Complaints Committee – 08136-20 Mitchison
v Express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Neil Mitchison 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 "Lib Dems admit Brexit
policy a 'high speed car crash' in humiliating secret memo”, published on 16
May 2020.
2. The article reported that the Liberal Democrat’s
“disastrous general election campaign had been compared to a “’high-speed car
crash’, according to a damning internal party enquiry”. The article went on to
report that “the party review polled 20,000 members", and that “one
section of the analysis was headlined: The election: a high-speed car crash”.
The article went on to state that the report had said that “beyond stopping
Brexit”, the Party’s “other policies and messages struggled to cut through”.
The article featured a comment from the acting leader, who said: “I’m proud we
published it. Many other political parties wouldn’t, but we have shown real
courage “.
3. The complainant said that the article’s headline was
inaccurate. Firstly, the complainant said that it was inaccurate to refer to
the report as “secret”, as it had been voluntarily published on the Party’s
website and therefore could not legitimately be considered to be secret.
Secondly, he said that the report referenced the article did not describe the
Party’s Brexit policy as a “high speed car crash”, rather it described it’s 2019
election campaign as that; the publication could not make this admission on
behalf of the Party, where the report did not make this declaration about the
policy.
4. The publication denied a breach of Clause 1. It said that
it was not inaccurate to refer to the report as “secret” in the headline; the
Party was secretive about publishing it as it had not shared it on its official
social media channels, despite there being six other articles shared on its
official Twitter account that day and four further articles the following day.
The publication said that the Party had chosen to not make the report widely
publicised and accessible and therefore it did not accept that it was
inaccurate to report that the memo was “secret” in the circumstances.
5. The publication said that it was not inaccurate to report
that the party had said its Brexit Policy was a “High speed car crash”. The
publication said that the article itself made clear that the report stated that
beyond stopping Brexit, the party’s “other policies and messages had failed to
cut through”. The publication also noted that “Stop Brexit” was the party’s
main policy and the only named policy in the memo, therefore it was not
inaccurate to report that the Party had admitted to it being a “high speed car
crash”. Nevertheless, it said that the article’s sub-headline immediately
clarified that the Party had said its election campaign had been compared to a
“high speed car crash”.
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 Committee considered that where the report had been
voluntarily put into the public domain by the Liberal Democrats by virtue of
publication on its website, it was misleading for the headline to report that
it was “secret”, and where the body of the article had gone on to report that
it was a published memo, the publication had failed to take care not to publish
headlines not supported by the text in breach of Clause 1(i). Where readers
would have understood from the headline that the party had concealed this
information, whereas the body of the article explained that this information
was, in fact, publicly available on the party’s website, the Committee
considered the headline to be significantly inaccurate. This inaccuracy was
significant because it alleged that the party was failing to be transparent
when that was not the position and as such required correction under Clause 1
(ii).
8. Whilst the internal inquiry of the party had expressly
compared the election campaign to a “high speed car crash”, it was not
inaccurate or misleading for the article to report that the party had admitted
that its Brexit policy had been a “high speed car crash” in circumstances where
the party had campaigned on a manifesto to prevent Britain leaving the EU and had conceded that
its other polices and messages had made
little impact upon the electorate.
Conclusions
9. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i) and Clause
1(ii).
Remedial Action Required
10. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, 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 an adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
11. The Committee considered that the publication had failed
to take care to publish a headline supported by the text and ruled that a
correction should be published and the headline amended to reflect that the
memo was not secret in order to put the correct position on record.
12. The Committee then considered the placement of the
correction. It should appear as a standalone in the publication’s corrections
and clarifications column and also as a footnote to the article. It should
state that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent
Press Standards Organisation. The full wording and position should be agreed
with IPSO in advance.
Date complaint received: 06/06/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/12/2020
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints
Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The
Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did
not uphold the request for review.