Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09721-21 Cassidy v Jersey Evening Post
Summary
of Complaint
1. Duncan
Cassidy complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Jersey
Evening Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Young people harassed by
anti-vaxxers outside clinic”, published on 10 August 2021.
2. The
article reported on a group of “anti-vaccination protesters” at a Covid-19
drop-in vaccination clinic whom the “police were called to disperse” with
“children as young as 16 claiming they were being intimidated as they went for
their jab”. The article described a group of “15-20 protesters” who had
“’verbally harassed’ staff and Islanders” who had gone to get their first dose
of the vaccine. It contained quotes and the account of a mother of a 16
year-old boy who said her son “had to leave through the back of the tent having
been approached by the group” on the advice of staff members. The woman was
quoted stating that a man with a placard had “shout[ed]” at her son and that it
“was incessant” and when she asked he stop “this only made things worse”, and
that her son had been “really intimidated at the thought of having to sit and
be stared at” when sitting after receiving his vaccination. She praised the
staff at the clinic “despite the trouble”. The article also included a quote
from a police spokesperson: “Police were called on Saturday 7 August at 3.45pm
regarding a group of approximately 15 to 20 protesters who had turned up at the
Springfield pop-up vaccine centre. Some of these protesters were verbally
harassing staff and some of the people attending to be vaccinated. Police
attended and the group dispersed by 4pm. No offences took place and no arrests
were made.”
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that he had been present at the clinic when the police had arrived. He said
that it was inaccurate to report that the police had been “called to disperse”
the people at the clinic. Whilst he accepted the police had been called, he
said that when they arrived they did not speak to any of the protesters and did
not actively attempt to disperse them as they would have done if that had been
the reason why they were called.
5. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that any of the people had
harassed anyone, as he had only seen people speaking amongst themselves, or to
staff who seemed willing to speak to them. The complainant said he had seen a
person with information about the yellow card scheme shout twice about deaths
and adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccinations, possibly whilst someone was in
the vaccination tent, but he did not consider that there was any evidence that
this man was opposed to Covid vaccinations. He said it was inaccurate to report
that the group were “anti-vaxxers” as this suggested that they were against all
vaccines and not just the Covid-19 vaccine. Similarly, the complainant said it
was inaccurate to describe the group as “protesters” and said that no one had
been “verbally harassed”. The complainant also denied that there were 15-20
people there, and instead said he would have estimated it to be 12, and a
maximum of 15.
6. The
complainant also said that it was inaccurate to call the 16 year-olds having
their vaccination “children” as they were old enough to consent to the vaccine.
He also disputed that they had been intimidated by anyone outside of the
practice. The complainant disputed the mother’s account of the event. He said
he had not seen the child leave through the back of the tent, or be approached
by the people at the clinic, which the complainant accepted was possible but
that he had not witnessed the events as described in the article. He said the
mother’s account was exaggerated as she had only been shouted at twice, and
therefore saying speaking to the man “made things worse” and that the staff had
acted well “despite the trouble” was inaccurate as he had not seen any trouble
or behaviour that could be made “worse”.
7. The
complainant considered it contradictory to report firstly that children as
young as 16 had claimed to have been intimidated and then later in the article
that staff and Islanders had been verbally harassed. He said this was
contradictory as it started out as a claim, and then reported as if it was
fact. He reiterated he had seen no such behaviour.
8. Finally,
the complainant said that the article breached Clause 12 as it discriminated
against people who were against the Covid-19 vaccine. He said that the term
“anti-vaxxer” meant to be opposed to all vaccines, rather than just the
Covid-19 vaccines, and that the article had been written to deliberately incite
division and tension and vilify those who chose not to have the Covid-19 vaccine.
9. The
publication generally defended the accuracy of its report, which it said had
been based upon a press statement issued to the local media by the States of
Jersey Police, which was reported within the article in full. It accepted that
the police statement did not say that the police had been “called to disperse”
the group, but that the group had dispersed, and that the journalist had made a
mistake on this point. It offered to clarify this point within its first
substantial response after the matter was referred by IPSO in direct
correspondence with the complainant. It then clarified its proposed wording
within its first substantial response to IPSO’s investigation when it offered
to publish the following on page 2 and online as a footnote to the article:
On 10
August, the JEP published a front-page news report under the headline ‘Young
people harassed by anti-vaxxers outside clinic’ in which it was reported that
‘the police were called to disperse a group of anti-vaccination protesters’. The
article should have stated that the police were called regarding protesters
outside the vaccination centre, and those protesters dispersed shortly after
officers arrival. The error is regretted.
10. The
publication said that much of the information under complaint had been
accurately reported from the police press release. This release, which the
newspaper said it was entitled to rely on, described the group as “protesters”
of “15 to 20” people and that “some of these protesters were verbally harassing
staff and those attending to be vaccinated”. The publication also said that in
the context of the article which described a Covid-19 vaccination centre,
readers would understand that the vaccination the protesters opposed was the
Covid-19 vaccination. It also said that a person who is against the Covid-19
vaccination could accurately be described as being an anti-vaxxer.
11. The
publication said that it had spoken to a woman present at the incident who had
told them that her child felt intimidated, and that it was entitled to report
and accurately paraphrase her statement, including that her child left via the
back of the tent and that speaking to the man to the placard made the situation
“worse” in her opinion. The publication said that the complainant was not in a
position to dispute the mother’s account for the events or how her son felt
12. The
publication noted that a woman had claimed that her 16 your-old son had been
intimidated, and that, separately, the police had stated that staff members and
people present had been “verbally harassed”. It therefore said it was not
contradictory to include both references within the article.
13. The
publication did not accept that Clause 12 was engaged. It said that the freedom
to report on the divisive issue of vaccination could not be intruded on solely
because it could cause offense to some people.
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.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
14. The
Committee considered first the complaint about whether the police had been
“called to disperse” the protest. The Committee noted that neither party had
knowledge of the intentions of the party that called the police; the
complainant’s position was solely that, in his opinion, the police did not
appear to be deliberately dispersing people after they arrived. It was not in
dispute that police had been called to the scene of the protest in response to
concerns about the activities of the “protesters”, which the subsequent press
release had described as “verbal harassment”, and that they had remained at the
scene as the “protesters” dispersed. Given this sequence of events, the
Committee did not consider that there was any failure to take care over the
accuracy of the article, or any significant inaccuracy established; the police
being called to the scene in response to the protest and remaining while the
“protesters” dispersed was not significantly different from police being
“called to disperse” the protest. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the
publication’s offer to clarify its position as a positive response to the
complaint.
15. The
Committee noted that the article was based upon a press release from the
police, and that this release had been included in full within the article. The
press release had described the group as “protesters”. In addition, an
interview with a further witness described a man shouting with a placard, which
the Committee considered could reasonably be described as “protesting” and had
been witnessed by the complainant. The police had also reported that some
members of the group had “verbally harassed“ staff and others in attendance. By
relying on the press release, and furthermore interviewing a party who had been
present, the publication had taken sufficient care not to report inaccurate
information under Clause 1(i). Where the publication had relied on this, and
where the complainant accepted he had seen someone shout twice, this was not a
misleading characterisation of the events. The police had also put the number
of people at between 15-20, which had been accurately reported by the
newspaper, and was not significantly different from the number of 12-15 as
supplied by the complainant. Finally, the Committee did not consider it
misleading to refer to people who are opposed to the Covid-19 vaccine as being
“anti-vaxxers”, where they had gathered due to their opposition to a vaccine.
It also noted that it was clear from the context of the article, which
described opposition outside a Covid-19 vaccination centre, which vaccine the
people were opposed to. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
16. The
Committee did not consider it to be inaccurate to describe a 16-year-old as a
“child” where the legal age of adulthood in the UK is 18. It noted that the
newspaper had interviewed a woman who had described her and her son’s
experience of the incident, including that her son had felt intimidated. The
complainant may not have personally found the incident to be intimidating;
however, he was not in a position to dispute the experiences of a third party
or to comment on the details of their movements on the day. Where the
complainant accepted that the man with the placard had shouted on two
occasions, it was not misleading for the newspaper to characterise this as
“trouble” or that the woman found talking to him “made things worse”. There was
no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
17.
Where, as above, the Committee found it was neither inaccurate nor misleading
to state that a 16-year-old had claimed to be intimidated, and that staff
members and Islanders present had been “verbally harassed”, it was not
inaccurate, nor contradictory, for both of these claims to be included in the
article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
18.
Finally, Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the
press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability.
Choosing not to take the Covid-19 vaccine is not a characteristic protected by
the Code, and therefore there was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusion(s)
19. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
20. N/A
Date
complaint received: 07/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/04/2022
Back to ruling listing