Resolution Statement - 08294-19 Reed v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Lucy Reed complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Sinking support for water
nationalisation" published on 22 October 2019.
2. The article also appeared online in a substantially
similar format.
3. The article reported on a decline in public support for
the nationalisation of the water industry amid fears that pension values could
be hit. To illustrate the general decline is support, the article stated that,
according to a COMRES poll, support for nationalisation had fallen to 27%.
4. The complainant said that the statement that “only 27 per
cent of voters” support nationalisation according to a COMRES poll was
incorrect. The poll in fact showed that 49% of voters supported
nationalisation.
5. The 27% figure was actually the result of a different,
loaded, question in the same poll. This question asked: “The Labour Party’s proposal for
nationalising the water industry would mean the government paying less for
water companies than they are worth, which would reduce the value of nearly 6
million people’s pensions which are invested in water companies, including both
public and private sector workers’ pensions. If this were to happen as a result
of nationalisation, to what extent would you support or oppose the
nationalisation of water and sewerage services in England?”
Relevant Code Provisions
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.
Mediated Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved during the referral
period, as the publication did not contact the complainant. IPSO therefore
began an investigation into the matter.
7. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication accepted
that they should have cited a less contentious figure or made clear that the
reported figure came from a loaded question conditional on a decline in pension
values. Therefore, the newspaper offered to publish the following correction
that appeared online and in print on 6 December 2019:
“We reported that, according to a COMRES poll, only 27 per
cent of voters think that water companies should be taken out of private hands
(Business, Oct 22). This was incorrect. The COMRES poll actually found that 49
per cent of voters supported nationalisation.
The incorrect figure of 27 per cent came from a different
question in the same poll. This question asked:
"The Labour Party’s proposal for nationalising the water industry
would mean the government paying less for water companies than they are worth,
which would reduce the value of nearly 6 million people’s pensions which are
invested in water companies, including both public and private sector workers’
pensions. If this were to happen as a result of nationalisation, to what extent
would you support or oppose the nationalisation of water and sewerage services
in England?”
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her satisfaction.
9. The publication also regretted that they did not contact
the complainant during the referral stage. The said that this was due to
unfortunate confusion and assured IPSO that this would not reoccur.
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints
Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach
of the Code.
Date complaint received: 24/10/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/12/2019