Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11622-22 Duncan v The Sun on Sunday
Summary
of Complaint
1. Stephen
Duncan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun
on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “POLL BOOST FOR UNION SINCE DEATH”, published on 18 September
2022.
2. The
complainant was one of a number of individuals who raised concerns about the
article; he was selected as IPSO’s lead complainant.
3. The
article reported that “support” for Scottish independence had “plummeted”
following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. It said that an exclusive poll by
the publication, 10 days after the monarch’s death, had “found a seven per cent
drop in those wanting a breakaway.” It stated that “[j]ust 42 per cent of Scots
would vote for independence if there was a referendum tomorrow, compared to one
poll last month that found 49 per cent were in favour of a vote”.
4. The
article was accompanied by three infographics which detailed the findings of
the polls and which read, respectively: “42% would vote for independence, down
from 49% last month”; “28% of Scots think the Queen’s death has strengthened
the Union”; “55% are not in favour of a second independence referendum”
5. A
substantially similar version of the article appeared online, headlined “UNION
SUPPORT BOOST Support for Scottish independence plummets since Queen’s death”.
6. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause
1 (Accuracy). He said that, in claiming that there had been a “seven per cent”
reduction in support for Scottish independence, the publication had compared
figures from two separate polls by two separate organisations: Panelbase and
Deltapoll, respectively, and that these polls were not comparable.
7. While
the complainant accepted that a comparison of the two polls suggested a
reduction in support for independence, he said that it was inaccurate and
misleading to report that support had “plummeted” since the Queen’s death. He
said that when the publication had used the first of these polls – conducted by
Panelbase in August 2022 – as a basis for the comparison it had done so by
excluding from the dataset the respondents who were “undecided” on the matter
as well as those deemed “unlikely to vote” and had then calculated the level of
support as a split between the remaining respondents. He said that this was how
the publication had arrived at a figure of “49 per cent” of people supporting
independence.
8. In
contrast, for the second poll – conducted by Deltapoll in September 2022 – the
complainant said that the figure of “42 per cent” in support of independence
cited by the publication was a proportion of the entire dataset that included
respondents who were “undecided” and who “would not vote” in a hypothetical
referendum on the matter. The complainant said that the article misleadingly
presented the polls as a “like-for-like” comparison without making this
distinction sufficiently clear.
9. The
complainant said that there were further reasons why the polls were not
comparable: they had been completed by separate organisations and followed
different methodologies. This included, for example, omitting certain cohorts:
the Deltapoll survey did not include respondents who were 16-17 years-old; a
segment of the Scottish population normally represented as they would, as per
the 2014 Independence Referendum, be entitled to vote on the matter.
10. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. While it accepted
that the “7 per cent” figure had been calculated as the complainant described,
it did not accept that the article had distorted the findings of the two polls
or that it contained any significant inaccuracies. The publication said it was
entitled to compare polls on the same subjects from different polling
companies, when they used similar questions, even if the precise polling
methodology varied, and that it was common practice for newspapers to do so and
as such readers would not be misled.
11.
Further, it said that regardless of which variables were taken into account, a
comparison of the two polls showed a clear fall in support for Scottish
independence following the death of the Queen varying from the “7 per cent”
reported (“don’t knows” excluded from the first poll and included within the
second) to 4 per cent (including “don’t knows” in both) and 2 per cent
(excluding “don’t know” in both). The publication said that a difference
between the figures was insignificant and inconsequential; each comparison
represented a fall in support for Scottish independence and to such an extent
that would be sufficient to result in a ‘No’ vote, were a further referendum
held on the matter. In addition, the newspaper said that “plummets” was clearly
a subjective characterisation of this fall, and recognisable as such.
12.
Notwithstanding this, at the beginning of IPSO's investigation, the publication
offered, in an effort to resolve the matter, to remove the online article and
publish the following clarifications on page two in print in its Corrections
and Clarifications column and on the Corrections and Clarifications page of its
website:
“A 18th
September article said that support for Scottish independence had fallen 7%
since the Queen's death. This figure was based on two polls whose methodologies
were not strictly comparable. In fact, the figures suggest a drop of between 2%
and 4%, depending upon assumed variables in the polling.”
“A 17th
September article, now removed, said that support for Scottish independence had
fallen 7% since the Queen's death. This figure was based on two polls whose
methodologies were not strictly comparable. In fact, the figures suggest a drop
of between 2% and 4%, depending upon assumed variables in the polling.
13. The
complainant did not accept this offer of resolution, as the proposed wording
did not adequately address his concerns. He said that a correction should be
published as prominently as the original article, which had been published on
page 17 and appeared on the home page of the website. The complainant also said
that the wording of the correction should include an apology.
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. The
Committee recognised the important and continual role that opinion polls play
in the media landscape: providing publications and readers alike with insight
into the public’s view on a particular issue at a specific point in time. The
newspaper was entitled to compare the findings of two polls, but it was obliged
to take care not to mislead readers in doing so.
15. The Committee
considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that support for
Scottish independence had “plummeted” by “7 per cent” (meaning seven percentage
points) following Queen Elizabeth’s death. This figure had been calculated by
comparing the findings of two separate polls which asked respondents whether
Scotland should be an independent country; the first of which was conducted
before the Queen’s death and the second following it. The “49 per cent” figure
– the outcome of the first poll – was a percentage only of the respondents who
had answered “Yes” or “No” to the statement, and not of the wider constituency
of respondents who had also said they were “undecided” and/or were deemed to be
“unlikely” to vote. In contrast, the “42 per cent” figure was the percentage of
those in support of Scottish independence from a dataset which did include such
respondents. The publication accepted that a like-for-like comparison of the
figures produced, depending on how each was calculated, a lower percentage in
support for independence than claimed in the article: between two and four percentage points. In
the view of the Committee, failing to make clear that the publication had
applied different methodologies in calculating each of the figures in the
comparison, and where that resulted in a greater difference between the two
figures than might have otherwise been the case, constituted a failure to take
care over the accuracy of the article, raising a breach of Clause 1 (i).
16. The
reporting of the comparison without making this clear, particularly when this
interpretation formed the basis of the claim that support for Scottish
independence had “plummeted” by such a margin following the Queen’s death, was
significantly misleading and as such required correction under Clause 1 (ii).
17. The
Committee next considered whether the remedial action taken by the newspaper
was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted the
complainant’s request for an apology. While there may be some circumstances in
which an apology may be appropriate, the nature of this breach was not one of
those occasions. It related to a general point of fact and did not personally
affect a specific person or people. Upon receipt of the complaint, the
publication had offered to publish a clarification, in print and online, and to
remove the online version of the article. The proposed clarification clearly
set out both the original inaccuracy and the true position. It was offered
promptly and its location, the publication’s established Corrections &
Clarifications column – online and in print, on page two – was sufficiently
prominent. The clarification was therefore sufficient to meet the terms of
Clause 1 (ii). There was no further breach of Clause 1 (ii).
18.
While the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns about the omission of
certain cohorts from the second poll, it noted that “16-17-year-olds” were not
a separate, individual cohort within the sample of the first poll; rather, this
group was incorporated into a much larger age group “16-34”. It was therefore unclear as to the precise
impact that this particular age group, which had been allowed to vote in the
Scottish Independence in 2014, had upon the poll’s findings and by extension
the accuracy of its comparison to the second poll. Taken in this context, and
where readers would understand that a comparison between two different polls,
undertaken by two separate organisations, at separate times, under different
conditions and employing different methodologies, would have their own
limitations, the Committee did not consider that this rendered the article
inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
19. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
20. The
clarifications which were offered clearly put the correct position on record
and were offered promptly and with due prominence. In relation to the in-print
clarification, the Committee noted that this appeared in the newspaper’s
Corrections and Clarifications column on page 10, rather than on page two as
originally agreed. While the Committee recorded its concerns that the newspaper
had published this clarification in a different location and had failed to
communicate this decision to IPSO prior its publication, it did not consider
that further action was required. The published clarification had identified
the original inaccuracy and set out the correct position clearly. Further, this
clarification had appeared in the newspaper’s regular and recognisable
Corrections and Clarifications column and was considered sufficiently prominent
given the prominence of the original article (page 17). In the circumstances,
no further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 19/09/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/12/2022
Back to ruling listing