Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10578-22 Gomersall v leeds-live.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Nicola
Gomersall complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation on behalf
of herself and her husband, Kevin Gomersall, that leeds-live.co.uk breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Struggling Leeds couple forced to feed kids nothing but ready meals and sell
off possessions”, published on 1 July 2022.
2. The
article was based on an interview with the complainant and her husband in which
they discussed the rising cost of living. It reported that the couple said
rising costs have “caused their lives to become a misery”, with them “having to
feed their kids cheap ready-meals, stay in all the time as they can’t afford to
out go [and] spending £50 a week just to take one child to school”. It reported
that “energy costs have been through the roof for the large family [with five
children] on their various computer or games consoles throughout the day as
they’re off school”. It quoted the complainant saying, “With all the prices
going up, its going to become a choice of eating or taking your kids to
school”, with her husband adding “[f]ood, gas, electric everything has gone up
[…] [o]ur kids don’t eat as healthy anymore because it costs too much for food.
We’re giving them ready meals, something quick and simple”. It quoted the
complainant’s husband saying: “It’s a bit of a nightmare. We don’t even get to
go out anymore. We basically have to sit in because we have no money to pay.”
It also reported that the complainant said the rising fuel costs meant it “cost
£50 a week just to take their 15-year-old child” to school. It stated that this
child attended “Tadcaster Grammar” and was “on the waiting list for the school
bus”.
3. The
article was accompanied by three photographs of the couple at the a car boot
sale, captioned, respectively: “Parents Kevin and Nicola Gomersall have been
struggling with the cost of living crisis”; “Kevin and Nicola were selling
their possessions at Wetherby Car Boot Sale”; and “Kevin and Nicola have been
paying £50 a week just to take one child to school in Tadcaster”
4. The
article was also promoted on the publication’s Facebook page under the headline
“Leeds couple’s ‘nightmare’ as they are forced to feed children ‘nothing but
ready meals’”. It was shared with an image of the complainant and her husband
and was shared with a status which read: “They face a mountain of bills and
can’t afford to go out [sad emoji]."
5. The
complainant said the article misrepresented the comments she and her husband
had made to the journalist. The complainant said that they did not tell the
reporter that their family were “struggling” and “miserable”; could “only
afford to feed their kids cheap ready meals”; and needed to sell off their
possessions. She said that the article
inaccurately and misleadingly reported that her children played their various
“computer and games consoles” throughout the day “as they’re off school”. While
she accepted that her children played with these devices in their spare time,
they each attended school; they were not out of school and playing on these
consoles as the article suggested. She also said the article was inaccurate to
report that her 15-year-old son attended “Tadcaster Grammar” and was on the
“waiting list for the school bus”. While the complainant accepted that another
one of her children attended this school and was waiting for a place on the
school bus, her 15-year-old son attended a separate school, Wetherby School,
and already had a place on the school bus.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. The publication said
that the article was an accurate report of the interview with the complainant
and her husband, and provided an audio recording of the interview to IPSO to
demonstrate this as well as the reporter’s notes. It added that the complainant
and her husband had consented to an interview with the journalist, with the
reporter identifying which publication they represented and the purpose of the
interview: to discuss the cost-of-living crisis its impact on families with
sellers at the car boot sale.
7. The
publication said both the audio recording and reporter’s notes showed that the
complainant had discussed the increasing costs and difficulties faced by their
family, with the complainant’s husband saying that the extra money made from
the car boot sales did “help”. In the recording, the complainant’s husband said
it was “tough” with “everything going up” including “food”, “petrol, gas [and]
electric”. The reporter asked whether the complainant and her husband were
“feeling the strain” of feeding a family with five children to which the
complainant’s husband agreed. The reporter then asked what “sort of changes”
the pair had had to make as a consequence of rising cost, with the
complainant’s husband saying that the “kids [do] not eat as healthy anymore as
it costs too much [..] so we are giving them ready meals”. In the recording,
the complainant’s husband also said “[i]t’s a nightmare […] we don’t even get
to go out anymore […] we are basically sat in because we have no money at all
and made reference to “arguments”: “When you’re living with each other, it
causes a lot of arguments. You get angry. You need your space.”
8. Notwithstanding
this, upon receipt of a direct complaint from the complainant, the publication,
in a gesture of goodwill, amended the headline of the online article to from
"Struggling Leeds couple forced to feed kids nothing but ready meals and sell
off possessions” to "Struggling Leeds couple forced to feed kids ready
meals and sell off possessions”.
9. The
publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate or misleading to
report that the complainant‘s children were “on their various computers or
games consoles throughout the day as they’re off school”. In the recording, the
complainant and her husband also made reference to “game consoles” and the cost
of electricity: “In our house, we have all the computers going […] when the kids
are off school […] our electric is through the roof”. Further, the publication
said it was clear that the children were currently on their summer holidays.
10. In
addition, the publication accepted that complainant had been referring to a
different child in her interview; her “15-year-old” child did not attend
“Tadcaster Grammar”. While the publication did not accept that this amounted to
a significant inaccuracy, it offered to amend the online article and to publish
the following footnote correction:
“A
previous version of this article reported that the child that attended
Tadcaster Grammar School was 15. In fact, this child is 13 years old. We are
happy to clarify this”
11. The
complainant did not consider that the amendments to the online article and
footnote correction were adequate. The complainant expressed concern that the
wording did not address her primary concerns that the article had misrepresented
her and her husband’s comments and did not include an apology for the
inaccuracies.
12. In
response to the audio recording provided by the publication, the complainant
said that it had been edited. For example, it omitted her response when her husband
told the reporter that he gave their children ready meals: “I have never given
them ready meals, you cheeky sod”.
13. The
publication denied that the audio recording had been interfered with or altered
in any way.
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
14. In
considering the accuracy of the article, the Committee had regard for the
reporter’s notes and the audio recording provided by the publication. The
Committee noted the complainant’s position that the audio recording had been
edited to remove something that she had said. However, in the absence of any
specific evidence in support of this position, and there was not, to the
regular listener, any suggestion in the recording that it had been edited, the
Committee proceeded on the grounds that the audio file was an unedited
recording of the complainant’s conversation with the reporter. The Committee
then turned to consider whether the article had accurately reported the
comments made by the complainant and her husband in that recording.
15. The
headline of the article, and the accompanying Facebook post, reported that the
couple had been “forced to feed [their] kids nothing but ready meals”. However,
the audio recording of the interview did not support this assertion. While the
complainant and her husband had indicated that due to higher food prices they
had changed their family’s eating habits and were now feeding their children
ready meals; they did not, in any way, suggest that they been forced to feed
their kids “nothing but” ready meals. The headline claim did not reflect the
complainant’s comments and consequently gave the clear and misleading
impression that their children’s diet consisted solely of this particular
category of food. On this basis, the publication had failed to take care not to
publish inaccurate and misleading information in breach of Clause 1(i).
16. In
the particular context of an interview with two parents where the claim related
to the quality of food that they were giving their children this inaccuracy was
considered significant by the Committee: it distorted the complainant’s
comments during the interview and suggested that the couple had been forced to
feed their children “nothing but” ready meals, which they had not. It therefore
required correction under Clause 1 (ii). While the Committee noted that the
headline of the online article had been amended to address this point, no
clarification or correction had been offered by the publication. There was
therefore a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
17. The
Committee then consider whether the article was inaccurate to report that the
complainant’s children were on “various computer or games consoles throughout
the day as they’re off school”. In the
recording, the complainant’s husband told the reporter “when the kids are off
school” they have “all the computers going” and as a consequence of this the
“electric [was] through the roof”. However, the article had misreported the
quotation; substituting “as” for “when” and in so doing wrongly suggested that
the complainant’s children were not in school when they otherwise should be and
playing on computer consoles during that time. This statement was not supported
by the audio recording or the reporter’s notes. On this basis, the publication
had not taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the complainant’s comments
in breach of Clause 1 (i).
18. In
the view of the Committee, the suggestion that the complainant’s children were
not at school when they should be was significant and required correction under
Clause 1 (ii). As no correction had been offered, this represented a further
breach of Clause 1(ii).
19. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns that the article reported
that her and her husband were “struggling”; had been forced to “sell off” their
possessions; and that increased costs had made their lives a “misery”. The
Committee noted that the interview had been conducted at a car boot sale where
the complainant was selling items. In addition, the Committee noted that,
during the interview, the complainant’s husband said that the extra money made
from the sales did “help” with rising costs. Further, the Committee noted the
complainant and her husband had stated during the interview that increasing
costs were making life “tough” and “a nightmare”; actively agreed that their
family were feeling the “strain”; and referred to “arguments”. In this context,
the Committee was satisfied that the comments made by the couple, and relied
upon by the publication, provided a sufficient basis for the manner in which
the publication had summarised and characterised the complainant’s position; it
was not a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article to report that
the couple were “struggling”; had been “forced” to “sell” their possessions;
and their lives were a “misery”. Further, the Committee did not consider that
the publication’s summary of the comments made by the complainant and her
husband were significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
20.
Finally, the Committee did not consider reporting that the complainant’s
“15-year-old” child attended Tadcaster Grammar School rendered the article
inaccurate or misleading. The section of the article where this statement
appeared had focused on the practicalities and costs of transporting one of the
complainant’s children to school. Taken in this context, and where it was not
in dispute that another of the complainant’s children attended this particular
school and was waiting for a place on the school bus, the misreporting of the
age of the child did not constitute a failure to take care or represent a
significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1. Notwithstanding
this, the Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to publish a footnote correction
addressing this point.
Conclusion(s)
21. The
complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
22.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii), 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 adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
23. In
coming to a view on the appropriate remedy in this case, the Committee
considered the seriousness and extent of the breach of the Code. The Committee
found that the publication had not taken the necessary care when reporting the
complainant’s comments to its reporter, and this had led to the publication of
inaccurate and misleading information, including within the headline of the
online article and the accompanying Facebook post. In these circumstances, the
Committee considered that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a correction
to put the correct position on the record.
24. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. In relation to the
online article, the headline of which had already been amended, this should
appear as a footnote. This correction should make clear that rising costs had
not forced the complainants to feed their children “nothing but” ready meals as
suggested by the original article. It should also make clear that the
substitution of “as” for “when” wrongly suggested that the complainant’s
children were not in school when they otherwise should be and played computer
and game consoles during that time.
25. A
separate post should also be published making clear that the Committee had
found the original Facebook post to be inaccurate, and setting out the correct
position. This should be published on the same Facebook account as the original
post, and remain on the publication’s Facebook feed indefinitely.
Date
complaint received: 21/07/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/10/2022
Back to ruling listing