Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10663-21 Straughan v blackpoolgazette.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Ian
Straughan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that blackpoolgazette.co.uk
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Fuel crisis highlights need for more electric car charging points in
Blackpool”, published on 7 October 2021.
2. The
sub-heading of the online article read “Calls have been made for more vehicle
charging points in Blackpool including to serve the resort’s tourism industry
as people switch to electric cars”, with the opening sentence stating that
there were “currently 50 charging points in the town for use by the public –
but the council says this number will double in the next two years”. The
article went on to report that the council’s latest local transport plan showed
£100,000 had been allocated to installing charging points in public car parks
and included the comments made by several councillors on the issue at a recent
meeting.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy) to report that there were “currently 50” electric vehicle (EV)
charging points available to the public in Blackpool. He said that the true
figure was significantly lower; there were only 13 EV chargers available to the
public in the borough of Blackpool. To demonstrate this, he referred to an
online database dedicated to recording the location and number of EV charging
points.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
disputed figure had been provided by the local council’s press office,
following a council meeting which discussed the need for increased investment
in this infrastructure. The press office had subsequently confirmed to the
newspaper that this figure had been obtained from an online database and
claimed it was the same database used by the Department of Transport to record
EV charging points. It considered that the publication was entitled to rely on
information provided by a public official.
5. Notwithstanding
its position that there was no breach of the Code, it noted that data published
by the Office for National Statistic (ONS) showed that, as of October 2021,
there were 24 public EV charging points in the Blackpool Council area and offered
to amend the online article to reflect this. It also offered, in an attempt to
resolve the complaint, to publish a letter from the complainant setting out his
position and to publish a follow-up article focused on the number of EV
charging points in the area. The publication did not, in any case, consider the
article to be significantly inaccurate, as the piece was not about the number
of existing public charging points in Blackpool, but rather was a report of a
council meeting in which a proposed increase to the number of charging points
was discussed. The number of existing charging points had not even been
mentioned in the course of the meeting.
6. The
complainant did not consider that the actions proposed by the publication were
sufficient.
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
7. The
Committee noted the dispute between the publication and the complainant
regarding the number of publicly available EV charging points in Blackpool. The
publication had provided correspondence between a representative of the local
council and its reporter in which the council provided the disputed figure of
“50” EV charging points. The Committee considered that the publication was
entitled to rely on information provided by the council on this subject, given
that it was the relevant authority with oversight of local public
infrastructure, and as such was satisfied that the publication had taken
sufficient care under Clause 1 (i) of the Code not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information.
8. The
Committee then considered whether, in spite of the care taken by the
publication, the article had contained a significant inaccuracy requiring
correction. A number of different figures for the true number of EV charging
points in Blackpool had been raised in the course of IPSO’s investigation. The
article had contained the figure of 50 on which the council, and apparently the
Department of Transport, based their policies; the complainant had provided a
significantly lower figure based on his own experience and investigations; and
the publication had advanced a third figure of 24 charging points, provided by
the ONS. The Committee was not in a position to resolve these conflicting
figures in order to ascertain a true figure: each had some evidential basis and
came from accountable sources. In these circumstances, where the publication
had been able to demonstrate that the figure contained in the article was that
used by the local authority and, according to the council, the Department of
Transport, the Committee did not agree that the figure could be considered as
significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) of
the Code. The Committee, however, welcomed the publication’s offer to include
the figure provided by the ONS into the article, as this would serve to
demonstrate that there was some dispute over the true number of the EV charging
points in Blackpool.
Conclusion(s)
9. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
10. N/A
Date
complaint received: 08/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/04/2022
Back to ruling listing