Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09483-22 Various v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
Independent Press Standards Organisation received 79 complaints that the Daily
Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “SHOW US THE PROOF, SIR KEIR”, published on 2 May 2022 and an
article headlined “Riddle as takeaway driver tells of ‘big’ curry delivery for
up to 30 people... then U-turns hours later”, published on 2 May 2022.
2. The
first article reported on “demands” from Tory MPs that Sir Keir Starmer provide
evidence relating to “beergate”. It said Sir Keir had insisted that on the
night in question “he was working and he and his team had only stopped for a
break and food before resuming their duties at Durham Miners Hall”, whereas
Tory MPs had asked for evidence he returned to work after being videoed
drinking a beer at 10.04pm on a Friday night on 30 April 2021 and that the
people who filmed him had seen a number of people present.
3. The
second article also reported on the night of 30 April, but focussed on the
claims of a takeaway driver who had initially stated that he had delivered a
“quite big order” of food to the Durham location, but “after the Mail continued
to make enquiries last night, the delivery driver changed his story, claiming
he had never even been to the Miners Hall”. The article described the
“43-second footage” as showing Sir Keir “drinking beer” and that several people
appeared to be eating naan bread. This article referred to the incident as “the
10pm gathering”.
4. The
first article began on the front page and continued onto page 6. The second
article was published on page 7 – so that it faced the first article in the
same two page spread. The first page referred to the footage being shot at
“10.04pm on a Friday night”, and the subheading described the incident as “10pm
drinks”. On page 6 the article also stated that Sir Keir had been pictured
“after 10pm”. On the same page was a still from a video taken on 30 April, in
which Sir Keir could be seen drinking a beer with the caption “Video footage:
Keir Starmer with a beer in the Durham Miners Hall”. Page 7 contained an image
of Sir Keir eating a curry at a table with another plate of food facing him,
and no other people visible. It was accompanied by the caption “Takeaway fan:
Keir Starmer tucking into a curry”.
5. The
first article also appeared online under the headline “Show us the proof, Sir
Keir: MPs demand evidence that Labour leader did not break Covid rules over
'beergate' amid claims of big curry delivery and 10pm drinks... as he still insists
it was a 'break' during work”, published on 1 May, in substantially the same
format. The article also contained the same image of Sir Keir sitting at a
table eating a curry but less tightly cropped so that more of the original
image was visible than in the print version. This version also contained: the
shoulder of someone sat next to Sir Keir, a second plate of food set opposite
him, another dining table behind him and a window which had light shining
through it in the background.
6. The
second article also appeared online under the headline “New 'beergate' riddle
as takeaway driver tells of 'big' curry delivery for up to 30 people... then
U-turns hours later”, published on 1 May 2022. It again contained a wider
cropped version of the image of Sir Keir eating curry, which showed he was sat
next to another person, that the room contained another table, and that there
was a window in the background which appeared to show light shining through it.
The caption to this image was: “Sir Keir Starmer insisted ‘no rules were
broken’ as he accused the Tories of ‘trying to throw mud around’ ahead of
Thursday’s local elections”. This article did not contain the still of Sir Keir
drinking beer, but slightly over an hour after the publication of the article,
the video of Sir Keir drinking beer was added to the article.
7. The
complainants said that the articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as
the image of Sir Keir eating curry had been taken in 2015. Complainants said
that the inclusion of the image of Sir Keir eating in the two articles gave the
inaccurate impression that the image was contemporaneous and that it
represented him breaking Covid rules on 30 April. They noted that that the full
version of the image, not reproduced in any of the articles under complaint,
showed Sir Keir eating with a man who died in 2019, which some complainants
considered was done deliberately in order to mislead the public.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that whilst the image
had been taken in 2015, it did not consider that any reasonable reader would be
significantly misled into understanding that the photograph was of the incident
that was the subject of the article, or that its inclusion in the article gave
rise to any significant inaccuracy. It said that the photograph simply served
as an illustration of Sir Keir eating a curry – the same food that he had
accepted he had consumed on 30 April. The publication said the article did not
purport to show an image from the disputed event and was simply captioned as
“Keir Starmer tucking into a curry” – as opposed to the still from the video in
the first article which was captioned “Keir Starmer with a beer in the Durham
Miners Hall”. The publication noted that Sir Keir was wearing a different
outfit in the two images, and that the articles where both images could be seen
would allow readers to directly compare the two. It also said that as the video
had been added to the online version of the second article an hour after
publication, that this should be considered as having been part of this version
of the article. The publication said that the image of Sir Keir eating curry
was clearly taken in the middle of the day in a restaurant by a professional
photographer, rather than the video and the still taken from it which showed
Sir Keir at the Miners Hall and was shot in the evening by an amateur with a
phone camera through an open window. The publication also said that footage and
stills of the incident had been the subject of high-profile and repeated
coverage – and considered it would be highly unlikely that a high-resolution,
close-up photograph from the same event would appear without comment on page 7
of the paper. The publication said that the culmination of these factors would
make clear to readers that this was not a photograph from the same event.
9. The
publication said that, in any eventuality, the photograph of Sir Keir eating a
curry was a generic picture that did not create any significantly misleading
impression as to the events at the Durham Miners Hall: Sir Keir had not
disputed that he ate a curry on 30 April and the photograph did not suggest
that any other activities were taking place.
10.
Whilst the publication did not accept that the publication of the photograph
represented any significant inaccuracy, it offered to publish the following
wording on page 2 in its corrections and clarifications box:
An
article on May 2 about the ‘Beergate’ allegations against Sir Keir Starmer
included a photograph which showed him eating a curry. Although the article
made no claim that this showed Sir Keir at last year’s event at the Durham
Miners Hall, we are happy to make clear that this photograph was taken in 2015
and was used for illustrative purposes only.
It also
amended the caption of the online version of the first article to read “Sir
Keir Starmer insists he did not break Covid rules when he was caught on camera
swigging beer with colleagues last year (Stock image)” and offered to add the
following as a footnote to the online articles:
This
article includes a photograph which shows Sir Keir Starmer eating a curry. We
are happy to make clear that this photograph was taken in 2015 and is used for
illustrative purposes only.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
11. It
was not in dispute that the photograph of Sir Keir eating a curry was a
historic image, which did not depict the event which was the subject of the
articles. The question for the Committee was whether the articles gave the
impression that the photograph showed Sir Keir at the event in question, and
whether that rendered the articles significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted.
12. The
Committee first considered the nature of the coverage. The claims surrounding
Sir Keir’s activities on 30 April in relation to “beergate” or “currygate” had
been widely reported – including the still taken from the video of Sir Keir
drinking a beer in Durham Miners Hall. The video still image had been included
in articles published by the Daily Mail on multiple occasions prior to the
publication of the articles under investigation. Both articles also made clear
that the incident had taken place at 10pm – with the print versions including
it in the frontpage straplines and again in the body of the articles on pages
1, 6 and 7.
13. With
regard to the print articles, the still image of Sir Keir with a beer was
positioned on page 6, and the image of him eating curry was on the opposite of
the double page spread on page 7. The two images differed extensively; most
notably, the still image was of low resolution, evidently taken from a distance
through a window at night, whereas the photograph of Sir Keir eating curry was
of significantly higher quality, taken in very close proximity to Sir Keir,
showed him wearing different clothes and appeared to be taken during the day.
As the images were on the same double page spread, readers would be able to
directly compare the two images, and their differences. This, in combination
with the previous coverage of the video and stills of Sir Keir drinking beer
and the fact that the articles had stated that the video had been taken at
10pm, made clear that images were not taken at the same event. Where the
articles did not state that the image was taken on 30 April, and the image
simply illustrated Sir Keir eating a curry, which he had accepted he had done
on the date in question, it was not misleading to use this picture to
illustrate the story. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 in relation
to the print articles.
14. The
online version of the first article also contained both the still from the
video and the picture of Sir Keir eating curry which was cropped less tightly
so as to show daylight in the background. It also made clear at a number of
points that the video had been taken at 10pm. Therefore, for the same reasoning
provided for the print articles discussed above, there was no breach of Clause
1.
15. The
online version of the second article had referred to Sir Keir as being filmed
by students “drinking beer”. The image in the article was clearly not a still
taken from a video, as it was a high-resolution image of good quality taken in
close proximity and, furthermore, did not show Sir Keir drinking a beer. In
addition, this version of the photograph also showed a window with daylight
coming through it in the background, whilst the article made clear that the
incident had occurred at 10pm. This, in conjunction with the fact that the
video and stills from it had been previously widely reported, made it clear
that this image had not been taken on the night in question. There was,
therefore, no breach of Clause 1 in relation to this article.
Conclusion(s)
16. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
17. N/A
Date
complaint received: 02/05/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/08/2022
Back to ruling listing