Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11054-20 Buchanan
v Telegraph.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Mark Buchanan complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an
article headlined “'The science' was right – it was the Government that was
wrong” published 12 June 2020.
2. The article reported on the concern about “the explosion
of fake news about the [Covid-19] virus”. The writer commented that the
“biggest fake news about the virus has been disseminated by the mainstream
media. I’m thinking of the myth that the government’s scientific advisors urged
Boris Johnson to impose a full lockdown long before March 23”. It went on to
state that “This narrative received a boost on Wednesday when professor Neil
Ferguson…told MPs that if the government had locked down a week earlier the death
toll would be considerably lower. ‘The epidemic was doubling every three to
four days before lockdown interventions were introduced,’ he told a select
committee”. The writer commented that “What’s so odd about Professor Ferguson’s
remarks on Wednesday is there’s no reason to think infections were doubling
every three or four days in the week before lockdown. Simon Wood, professor of
statistical science at Bristol University, published a paper on June 1 showing
that the R number in England and Wales was less than 1 before March 23. The
same conclusion has been reached by Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based
medicine at Oxford…The myth that’s grown up around the lockdown, then, is the
opposite of the truth” and has led to ”one of the worst decisions in our
history [the decision to lock down]”.
3. The complainant said the phrase “there’s no reason to
think infections were doubling every three or four days in the week before
lockdown” was inaccurate. Official ONS statistics showed that cases of Covid-19
had doubled every 3.1-3.3 days in the week prior to March 23; and a member of
the cabinet, Michael Gove, had publicly said this at the time at a daily
government briefing. Further, the complainant said that the disputed claim was
clearly presented as a claim of fact.
4. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
It said that the article was readily recognisable as a comment piece. It said
that the phrase -“there’s no reason to think”- was clearly rhetorical. It said
the phrase was not meant to be taken literally; and that readers would know the
columnist did not think that Professor Ferguson, an eminent epidemiologist, had
literally no reason for making his statement that the epidemic had doubled in
the week to March 23. It considered that readers would infer that the columnist
thought there was “no [good] reason” to think infections were doubling as he
preferred the evidence to the contrary, which had been elsewhere mentioned in
the article. Further, it said that a more recent statement from the
government’s chief medical officer -to the effect that the R number had gone
below 1 before 23 March- also supported the columnist’s view. Finally, whilst
it did not dispute that the official figures showed that recorded cases of
Covid-19 had doubled over the period, it disputed whether these figures where a
reliable guide to the number of infections. It said that the figures on
recorded cases were likely to have been distorted by the increased rate of
testing over this period; the unreliability of the test; and the fact that
high-risk groups such as medical professionals were being disproportionately
tested. This meant that the recorded cases did not accurately reflect the rate
of infections in the population at large.
5. In response to the publication’s position that the
official figures for recorded Covid-19 cases were not a reliable guide for the
number of infections, the complainant accepted that no data is beyond
questioning but said that this did not support the columnist’s unequivocal
statement that there was “no reason” to think infections were doubling every
three or four days in the week before lockdown. He also said that basic
epidemiological models predict early exponential growth in infections if a
virus enters into a population with no pre-existing immunity. The data appeared
to reflect this, indicating its reliability. He said that concerns that
increased testing would have made the figures unreliable as a measure of
infections in the population at large were unfounded; it was unlikely that a
rapid increase in testing over a week would materially distort the official
figures, especially given the widely perceived failure of the government to get
adequate testing in place at the time.
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 correction, promptly and with due prominence, and –where
appropriate– an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
6. Columnists are free under the Editors’ Code to campaign,
to be partisan, and to express an opinion. This includes offering an opinion on
the state of scientific evidence and critiquing the views of leading scientists
or questioning official data. Such a right accords with the fundamental right
to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Preamble to the Editors’ Code.
Nonetheless, newspapers must still abide by the terms of Clause 1, which
require a newspaper to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading
information, and to correct significant inaccuracies promptly and with due
prominence.
7. The columnist described the claim that infections “were
doubling every three or four days in the week before lockdown” as “odd”, a
“myth”, part of an “explosion of fake news” and the “opposite of the truth”,
and he cited two sources which he said demonstrated that the R-number had
reduced to below 1 by this time and that the pandemic was subsiding. In these
circumstances, his claim that there was “no reason” to believe that infections
were doubling constituted a claim of fact that evidence for this position was
not merely weak but so absolutely lacking that it constituted a demonstrable
falsehood.
8. The complainant challenged this on the grounds that the
ONS’ recorded case data did provide a basis for the claim that infections were
doubling during this period.
9. The Committee considered in detail the publication’s
argument that the ONS figures on recorded cases could not be relied upon in any
way as a guide to infections. For example, the publication had said that the
PCR tests used to identify cases were unreliable; however, the scientific paper
the publication relied upon for this claim estimated that false-positive results
could represent somewhere between only 0.8% and 4% of overall test results.
Additionally, the publication had said that the numbers of people tested had
rapidly increased in the weeks before lockdown; however, the article’s claim
was about the infection rate over the seven days before lockdown only. The
publication did not provide evidence that the rate of testing had increased
rapidly during this specific period. The Committee concluded that the
publication had not established that the ONS figures in the week before
lockdown were so unreliable to the extent that they did not constitute “reason
to think” infections had doubled over the period.
10. The Committee concluded that the presentation of the
claim that there was “no reason” to think that infections were doubling
constituted a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and that
the result was a significantly misleading statement, requiring clarification
under Clause 1 (ii).
11. The misleading statement was on a topic of public importance
and was used to support the article’s broader point that the lockdown was “one
of the worst decisions in our history”. As the publication had not offered to
correct the significantly misleading statement, there was a breach of Clause
1(ii).
Conclusions
12. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
13. Having upheld the complaint, 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 nature, extent and placement of which is
determined by IPSO.
14. The Committee noted that the disputed claim was on an
issue of significant scientific debate and was made in the context of a
polemical opinion piece. Notwithstanding the Committee’s conclusion that the
claim under complaint had constituted a claim of fact that the publication had
not been able to support, it acknowledged that it had been made in the context
of expression of opinion, and it should be slow to inhibit the right of
columnists to debate on important issues. In light of these considerations, the
Committee concluded that a clarification was the appropriate remedy.
15. This clarification should be added to the online article
and appear as a standalone clarification in the online corrections and
clarifications column. This wording should only include information required to
correct the misleading claim: that the article had claimed that there was ”no
reason to think [Covid-19] infections were doubling every three or four days in
the week before lockdown”; and that this was significantly misleading given
that evidence was available to support this claim, albeit disputed. The wording
should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been
published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation. If the publication intended to continue to publish the online
article without amendment the clarification should be published immediately beneath
the headline. If the article is amended, the clarification should be published
as a footnote which explained the amendments that have been made.
Date complaint received: 29/06/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/07/2021