Decision of the Complaints Committee – 09159-19 Fair Play for Women v kentlive.news
Summary of Complaint
1. Nicola Williams, acting on behalf of Fair Play for Women,
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that kentlive.news
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Katie Hopkins epically shut down after rant about Kent transgender
woman”, published on 6 November 2019.
2. The article reported on a Tweet by Katie Hopkins that
related to a transwoman cricketer who had won “club women’s player of the year”
and the response from the cricket club. The article also reported that the
cricketer’s “impressive club appearances have been clouded by transphobic abuse
from the group Fair Play for Women”. The article did not describe what the
alleged “transphobic abuse” had consisted of.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because Fair Play for Women had not “abused” the
cricketer, but had merely commented on whether biological males who identified
as women should be eligible to play in women’s cricket teams. She said that the
term “transphobic” meant having an irrational fear of transpeople, which was
not the case. She also said that the “abuse” referenced in the article
consisted of Tweets in which Fair Play for Women had referred to the cricketer
as “male”, discussed the cricketer’s biology, physical body and legal status
and asked for sports professionals and women to “speak up NOW”. The complainant
said that these Tweets were not “misgendering”. She further said that a
person’s gender identity had no impact on their sporting ability, whereas their
physical body and sex did. For these reasons, the complainant argued that the
Tweets were not transphobic, but raised a genuine concern and a subject for
debate. She said no journalist had contacted her or Fair Play for Women in
order to establish whether the allegations that they had committed transphobic
abuse were correct, and they therefore had no opportunity to deny this
allegation. In addition, she said that as the article did not describe the
alleged “abuse”, the background had not been made clear to readers and the
article carried an insinuation that Fair Play for Women may have committed a
crime or that the abuse was conduct more serious than Tweeting.
4. The publication did not accept that it had breached the
Code. On receipt of the complaint, as a gesture of goodwill, it offered to
delete the sentence in the article that referred to Fair Play for Women and to
add a clarification to set out the group’s position. However as the complainant
wanted an op-ed rather than a clarification, an agreement could not be reached
and a clarification was not published. The publication nevertheless resolved to
delete the sentence as a gesture of goodwill, but due to an error the sentence
was not permanently deleted until IPSO’s investigation had concluded.
5. The publication did not agree with the complainant’s
definition of transphobic, which it said could be defined as showing dislike
towards or prejudice against trans persons. The publication provided the Tweets
from the complainant which said: “Male cricketer wins WOMEN OF THE YEAR. No
‘transition’. Just self-ID and new pronouns. Sports women must speak up NOW.”; “Concern
that women are being displaced from their own game is not hypothetical, It’s
happening now. A male called Maxine is playing at county level for Kent. Maxine
used to play as a man and now, with no medical changes whatsoever, is rising to
the top of women’s county cricket.”; and (in response to the cricketer’s
teammate) “Tammy, it’s understandable you want to stick up for your friend
Maxine but the argument that males don’t have an advantage in cricket is utter
nonsense & you know it. We need sports professionals to engage with this
issue seriously so we can find a solution that works for all.” It said that
referring to the cricketer as “male” misgendered the cricketer and demonstrated
transphobia. It also said that the Tweet, by suggesting that the cricketer had
not transitioned, was transphobic as transitioning does not require surgery and
can encompass a range of medical or physical issues. Furthermore, it said that
encouraging others to “speak up NOW” against the cricketer was also
transphobic. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to publish the
following statement as a clarifying footnote:
We have been asked to make it clear that Fair Play for Women
were speaking up against male participation in women's sport. They do not
consider referring to trans women who do not hold a gender recognition
certificate (GRC) as a man, to be transphobic abuse, as described.
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 noted that the article referred to a
sensitive and contentious topic, and that the term “transphobic abuse” can be
used to describe a range of attitudes and behaviours. The article had asserted as fact that Fair
Play for Women had engaged in “transphobic abuse”, but it had not made clear
that this was the newspaper’s characterisation based on the organisation’s
references to the cricket player as “male” on social media. This omission was
significantly misleading and represented a failure to take care and there was a
breach of Clause 1(i). A correction was required in order to avoid a breach of
Clause 1(ii).
8. The publication offered to delete the line after
receiving the complaint and, in direct correspondence with the complainant,
offered to publish a statement which clarified the position. It then offered
specific wording for this statement during IPSO’s investigation. The Committee
noted that to correctly reflect the
position of Fair Play for Women, the proposed correction needed to be
amended to state that the group did not consider calling a transwoman “male” to
be “transphobic abuse”, rather than referring to “a man”. In addition, in order
to identify the misleading information which was being corrected, the
correction should begin “A previous version of this article reported that Fair
Play for Women had committed transphobic abuse”. The offer to publish a
clarifying statement was made promptly, prior to IPSO’s investigation, and the
publication of the correction as a footnote to the online article represented
due prominence. This should now be published to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
9. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
10. The correction which was offered, with the amendment of
the Committee, clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered
promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date complaint received: 27/11/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/04/2020