Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12114-20 British Fur Trade Association v Daily
Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
British Fur Trade Association complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article
headlined “THE BRUTAL, BLOODY PRICE OF A FUR COAT” published on 7 July 2020.
2. The
article was a campaigning piece reporting on an undercover investigation carried
out by a charity into an Asian fox fur farm.
It called for a ban on sales of all fur products in the UK and gave
details of practices at the farm which had caused the charity and anti-fur
campaigners concern and said that foxes’ “fur is made into coats to be sold on
the high street”. The article included photographs of the fox fur farm taken
during the undercover investigation. It also included a quote from an anti-fur
campaigner who set out again the mistreatment which the article reported had
taken place at the fur farm and said that “[The fur trade] needs to stop, and
the UK is now in a unique position to take action by banning fur sales. This –
and every – investigation into the fur trade shows that fur is not glamourous,
it’s grotesque, it’s cruelty not couture, and it’s time for the UK to stop
trading in such horrors”
3. The
article also appeared online on 6 July 2020 with the headline “Skinned foxes
piled in heap ‘like scene from hell’ before fur sold as high street coats”.
This version was the same as the print article but included video footage from
inside the farm which was investigated undercover. The video was captioned “At
a farm which supplies fur to British shops”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was misleading as it suggested that fur from
the farm which was the subject of the undercover investigation and was pictured
in the article was sold in British shops, when there was no evidence to suggest
that this was the case. It said that this was significantly misleading as the
sale of fur in the UK is highly regulated with welfare and legal standards, and
including the farm as part of its campaign distorted the nature of the British
fur trade. It said that it regulated the vast majority of fur sellers in the
UK, and the farm pictured in the article would not have met its standards to be
able to sell fur in the UK.
5. The
newspaper did not accept that the article was misleading. It said that prior to
the complainant contacting IPSO, it had removed the video from the online
version of the article. In its first response to the IPSO complaint, it offered
to publish the following wording as a gesture of goodwill:
“A
previous version of this article included a video which stated the footage was
taken ‘at a farm which supplies to British shops’. Although we did not name the
farms in question, the footage was taken at farms from one of the top exporting
countries of fur to the UK. We are happy to clarify this.”
The
newspaper did not accept that the article stated that the fur from the farm
pictured in the article and the subject of the investigation was being sold in
British shops. It said that the farm was not named. It said that the caption to
the video which appeared in the online article was added in error and was
removed on receipt of complaint. It said that this was a single reference in
the online article, and did not appear in the body of the text. It said that it
simply said that fur from the farm was sold on the “high street” which was shorthand for
shopping areas and retail in general – it did not say the UK high street.
However, it offered to amend the online headline to state “high street coats
worldwide” in addition to the clarification set out above.
6. During
IPSO’s investigation, on the 8 October, the newspaper offered to put the
complainant’s position on record by publishing the following wording as a footnote
to the online article:
“This
article includes photographs of an unidentified foreign fur site. We have been
asked by the British Fur Trade Association to state there is no evidence that
fur from this particular site is sold in the UK. We are happy to clarify this”.
On the
12 October, it then offered to publish this wording as a footnote to the online
article:
“A
previous version of this article included a video which stated the footage was
taken ‘at a farm which supplied to British shops’. Although we did not name the
farms in question we have been asked by the British Fur Trade Association to
state there is no evidence that fur from this particular site is sold in the UK.
We are happy to clarify this.
It said
that it had acted promptly by offering a correction for the online article on
receipt of the complaint. It said that a footnote clarification had been
previously determined to be sufficiently prominent, and that the inaccuracy was
confined to a single video clip, which had been removed.
Finally,
on the 15 October, it reverted to its previous offer made on the 8
October.
Relevant
Code Provisions
7. 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
8. The
article was part of a campaign to try and ban the sale of fur from British
shops because it said that fur farms treated the animals badly. It provided
various supporting arguments, including focussing on one specific farm which
had been the subject of an undercover investigation. It said that fur from the
farm would be sold “on the high street” – the online version included a video
which claimed that the farm was one which “…supplies fur to British shops”.
Furthermore, both articles included quotes from anti-fur campaigners who used
the results of the undercover investigation in support of their position that
fur should not be sold in British shops. The Committee considered that the
reference to “the high street” might be ambiguous as to whether it was
referring to fur from the farm being sold in British shops. However, when read
alongside the quotes criticising the trade of fur in Britain and placed in the
context of the newspaper’s campaign to ban the sale of fur in Britain, it was
reasonable to consider that the article was making a clear link between the
practices uncovered at this farm and the sale of fur in British shops. The
article was using the practices uncovered at this farm as the basis of its
criticism of the British fur trade.
9. The
newspaper was not able to provide any basis to suggest that fur from the farm
featured in the article was sold in British shops, and so therefore there was a
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article in suggesting that this
was the case. There was a breach of Clause 1(i). This was significantly
misleading – the newspaper did not appear to dispute that the complainant’s
position that the sale and trade of fur in Britain is highly regulated, and the
farms involved are subject to strict welfare requirements. As such, suggesting
that fur from a farm which mistreated foxes was being sold in British shops was
significantly misleading as to the nature of the British fur trade. The online article was also misleading by including
the video claiming that the farm supplied fur to British shops. There was a
requirement to correct both articles under Clause 1(ii).
10. The
newspaper had offered various corrections and clarifications in response to the
complaint. However, all of these offers only related to the online version of
the article, although the print article was also significantly misleading.
Furthermore, none of the offers made by the newspaper acknowledged that the
online article contained an inaccuracy or that the print article was
significantly misleading – the Committee considered that as such, the wordings
did not constitute a correction. As such, the offers made by the newspaper did
not satisfy the terms of Clause 1(ii)
Conclusions
11. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
12.
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.
13. The
Committee considered that the article was significantly misleading as to
whether fur from a farm which mistreated foxes was being sold in British shops.
As such, the Committee concluded that a correction was the appropriate remedy.
14. This
correction should be added to the online article and appear in the print
newspaper’s corrections and clarifications column. The wording should make clear
that the article had wrongly suggested that the farm supplied fur to British
shops, and that there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case. The
wording should also 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 intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction
should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments that have been
made.
Date
complaint received: 27/07/20
Date
decision issued: 11/12/20