Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12118-20 Wadeson v
oxfordmail.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. John Wadeson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that oxfordmail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in a reader comment published in response to an
article headlined “Hundreds of the 'most dangerous' guns owned in Thames
Valley”, published on 26 July 2020.
2. The comment, which was posted by an anonymous website
user in response to the article, stated that knives should be banned in the UK,
“[e]specially 'dangerous knives', like the one used by the refugee BLM [Black
Lives Matter] supporter, who murdered three and injured three more members of
the LGBT community, in a Reading park last month following a BLM rally.” The
commenter was referring to the stabbings which occurred in Forbury Gardens in
Reading on 20 June 2020.
3. The regulation of reader comments on a publication’s
website falls within IPSO’s remit when there is a possible breach of the
Editors’ Code of Practice, and where it can be shown that the comment has been
subject to some level of editorial control either through pre- or
post-moderation. The complainant said that the comment fell within IPSO’s remit
as he had reported the comment to the publication three times, first by using
the website’s comment reporting function, and then via a Facebook message and
an email to the editor. The complainant made these three reports within one day
of the comment being published, but had received no response from the
publication.
4. On 17 August 2020 IPSO referred the complaint to the
newspaper as a potential breach of the Editors’ Code. The newspaper did not
respond to the complainant during the referral period and IPSO notified the
publication of its intention to open an investigation on 29 September 2020.
That day the publication removed the comment and banned the commenter, and
wrote to IPSO to inform it of this.
5. The newspaper said that the comment did not fall within
IPSO’s remit, as it had not been aware of the comment under complaint until 29
September, at which time it removed the comment and banned the commenter. It
said that it did not pre-moderate comments, as it did not have the staff
capacity to do so and that, on this occasion, the comment had slipped through
the net and had not been dealt with as promptly as it usually would have, due to
staffing pressures brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. As such, it did not
post-moderate the comment until 29 September.
6. The complainant said that the comment was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1: the Police had released a statement making clear that the
stabbing was not related to the BLM rally which had occurred in the same park
earlier that day, and there was no indication that either the attacker or the
incident was linked to the BLM movement or organisation.
7. The publication denied a breach of Clause 1 in relation
to the comment. It said that the comment was clearly identified as being the
view of a reader; there was no suggestion that it had been posted by the
publication, or that the publication endorsed the views expressed in the
comment. In addition, the website’s terms and conditions made clear that
commenters, and not the publication, were responsible for the content they
posted. Website users would, therefore, be aware that the comment was the
opinion of the commenter, and not necessarily a verified statement of fact. The
publication also expressed concern about the effect that printing a correction
may have on the right to freedom of expression, both for the newspaper and the
commenter. It said that, should an individual disagree with the comment, they
could choose to exercise their own right to freedom of expression and reply to
the comment, setting out their own views. The publication also said that it did
not consider the comment under complaint to be inaccurate; while it noted that
Police had released a statement which said that the stabbings were not linked
to BLM, it did not agree that the police were in a position to make a statement
of fact regarding the attacker’s motivations and political affiliations, and
that neither the original commenter, the complainant, nor the Police could say
for certain whether the attacker was a “BLM supporter” until the matter was
discussed and adjudicated by the courts.
8. The publication said that it had not been aware of the
comment due to staffing issues brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, and said
that once it became aware of the comment on 29 September 2020, it had removed
it and banned the user, and considered that this action was sufficient to
resolve any concerns the complainant may have had regarding the comment’s
accuracy.
9. The complainant said that the publication had been made
aware of the comment through numerous channels from his first contact on 27
July but had not taken any action until 29 September. The complainant noted
that the publication had the ability to disable comments should it wish and had
previously done so. He considered that, if it was unable to effectively
post-moderate comments it should remove the comment function from its website.
The complainant said that he had been left unable to respond directly to the
disputed comment, as sometime after making his complaint to IPSO he had been
blocked from commenting on the website. He also expressed concern that the
publication would discount a statement made by the Police, in which they stated
that there was no link between the stabbings and the BLM movement.
10. The complainant said that only a full retraction of the
comment would be sufficient to address his concerns, given that it had remained
online for two months after he made his initial complaint to the newspaper.
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.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
11. The Committee first considered whether the comment under
complaint fell within IPSO’s remit. IPSO’s regulations make clear that content
on websites operated by regulated publications falls within IPSO’s remit if it
has been subject to editorial control. In the case of user-generated content
(such as comments), this generally means that there has been some form of
review or moderation on the part of the publication, which includes a decision
to continue to publish material that is the subject of a complaint under the
Editors’ Code.
12. The complainant had attempted to make the publication
aware of his concerns regarding the comment under complaint in three different
ways: he used the comment reporting system on the website to flag the comment;
sent the publication a direct message via its social media page; and emailed
the editor. The complainant’s concerns clearly related to the Editors’ Code:
the accuracy of the claim made by the commenter. IPSO had also made the
publication aware of the complainant’s concerns via an email sent on 17 August,
which included a copy of the complainant’s complaint identifying an alleged
breach of the Editors’ Code. The publication acknowledged receipt of this email
on 20 August. Nevertheless, the comment remained online until 29 September,
over two months after its initial publication on 26 July, and over a month
after IPSO had made the publication aware of the complainant’s concerns. As
such, the Committee found that, by late August at the latest, the publication
had received adequate notice the comment under complaint raised a potential
breach of the Editors’ Code, and it was given the opportunity to post-moderate
the comment. As such, from this point the Committee considered the comment to
be subject to editorial control and therefore the complaint fell within IPSO’s
remit.
13. As the Committee was satisfied that the comment fell
within IPSO’s remit, it turned next to the alleged breach of Clause 1. The
complainant had supplied a copy of a police press release stating that the
stabbing had no connection to the protest, which the publication had not
disputed. While the comment itself was clearly distinguished as a reader
comment – it appeared underneath the article in the reader comments section,
and was attributed to a commenter – the alleged inaccuracy, that the Forbury
Park stabbing was committed by a “refugee BLM supporter”, was a statement of
fact and not presented as the opinion of the commenter. This meant that the
protection afforded by Clause 1 (iv) – which makes clear that publications may
publish comment and conjecture, provided it is clearly distinguished from fact
– did not apply.
14. This complaint raised the issue of how the Committee
applies the terms of Clause 1(i) - which requires that the Press take care not
to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information - to user-generated
content. Given that the comment was not pre-moderated, the requirement for the
publication to take care did not begin from the date of first publication.
Rather, the Committee found that the requirement to take care over the accuracy
of a reader comment began from when the publication was made aware of the
alleged breach and was given the opportunity to post-moderate the comment. As
noted above, the complainant had contacted the publication within a day of the
publication of the article and the publication had acknowledged receipt of the
email from IPSO making it aware of the alleged breach of Clause 1 on 20 August.
The requirement to take care over the continued publication of the comment
therefore arose, at the latest, from 20 August. As the comment remained online
for a month after this point without the publication reviewing the comment, the
Committee found that the publication had not taken care over the accuracy of
the published information. As such, the Committee found that publication of the
comment breached Clause 1 (i).
15. Having found a breach of Clause 1 (i), the Committee
then considered whether the statement represented a significant inaccuracy in
need of correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii), and whether the steps the
publication had already taken were sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1
(ii). The inaccuracy related to a serious crime which led to the death of 3
individuals, and the attribution of a motive to the perpetrator of the crime.
It was an event which had an impact not only locally, but nationwide. By
linking the crime to BLM when police had made an explicit statement to the
contrary, the Committee found that the breach represented a significant inaccuracy,
and as such was in need of correction as required by the terms of Clause 1
(ii).
16. Clause 1 (ii) requires that a significant inaccuracy,
misleading statement, or distorted information must be corrected promptly and
with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. The Committee noted that the requirement to
correct can be satisfied in different ways, depending on the nature of the
material under complaint; in a case where the inaccuracy has appeared in
user-generated content, it may not be appropriate or proportionate to publish,
for example, a correction in a traditional corrections column.
17. The publication had, over two months after the
publication of the comment, removed it and banned the user. The publication
also removed all comments on the article.
The Committee agreed that user comments which are found to be inaccurate
in breach of Clause 1 may be corrected other than by the publication of a
traditional correction. However, the
Committee found that the action taken by the publication did not satisfy the
requirements of Clause 1 (ii); the inaccuracy had not been corrected as readers
were not informed of the reasons why the comment had been removed. Clause 1
(ii) also requires that any inaccuracy is corrected promptly, and the Committee
did not find that the removal of the comment, over a month after the
publication had been made aware of the potential breach of the Editors’ Code,
represented prompt action. As such, the Committee ruled that Clause 1 (ii) had
been breached.
Conclusions
18. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
19. 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.
20. On receipt of the complaint the publication had not
taken steps to fulfil its obligation under Clause 1 (i) to take care not to
publish inaccurate information; nor had it corrected the significant
inaccuracy. The Committee also expressed concern that the publication did not
appear to be aware of the role IPSO plays in ruling and adjudicating on
potential breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice arising from user-generated
content such as reader comments. Given the circumstances, the Committee
concluded that the publication of an adjudication would be an appropriate
remedy to the breaches it had identified.
21. The Committee considered the placement of this
adjudication. The original comment was posted in response to the online article
headlined “Hundreds of the 'most dangerous' guns owned in Thames Valley.” The
Committee therefore required that the adjudication and adjudication headline
should be posted underneath the original article. The adjudication should
appear as its own separate article. This would be required to appear on the top
half of publication website’s home page for at least 24 hours; it should then
be archived in the usual way. The headline of the adjudication should make
clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, give the title of the publication and
refer to the complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO
in advance. A link to the adjudication, along with the headline of the
adjudication, should also be posted beneath the original article.
22. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
Following a comment posted in response to an article
headlined “Hundreds of the 'most dangerous' guns owned in Thames Valley”,
published on 26 July 2020, John Wadeson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the publication had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld this complaint and has required
oxfordmail.co.uk to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
The comment, which was posted by an anonymous website user
in response to the article, stated that knives should be banned in the UK,
“[e]specially 'dangerous knives', like the one used by the refugee BLM [Black
Lives Matter] supporter, who murdered three and injured three more members of
the LGBT community, in a Reading park last month following a BLM rally.” The
commenter was referring to the stabbings which occurred in Forbury Gardens in
Reading on 20 June 2020.
The complainant said that the comment was inaccurate as the
police had released a statement making clear that the stabbing was not related
to the BLM rally which had occurred in the same park earlier that day, and
there was no indication that either the attacker or the incident was linked to
the BLM movement or organisation.
The publication said that the comment was clearly
distinguished as a reader comment; there was no suggestion that it had been
posted by the publication, or that the publication endorsed the views expressed
in the comment. Website users would, therefore, be aware that the comment was
the opinion of the commenter, and not necessarily a verified statement of fact.
The publication also said that it did not consider the comment under complaint
to be inaccurate; while it noted that Police had released a statement which
said that the stabbings were not linked to BLM, it did not agree that the
police were in a position to make a statement of fact regarding the attacker’s
motivations and political affiliations, and that neither the original
commenter, the complainant, nor the Police could say for certain whether the
attacker was a “BLM supporter” until the matter was discussed and adjudicated
by the courts.
While the publication did not accept that the Code had been
breached, it removed the comment under complaint, banned the user, and turned
off the comments function on the article. It took these actions two months
after the comment’s publication, and one month after IPSO made the publication
aware that the complainant had complained about the comment.
IPSO found that the publication had not taken care over the
accuracy of the comment, although it had been given sufficient notice that the
comment may raise a possible breach of Clause 1. The police had released a
statement which made clear that the stabbing had no connection to the BLM
movement or organisation, and the publication had supplied no evidence which
refuted the police’s statement. As the comment remained online for a month
after the latest point where the publication should have been aware of its
existence – after IPSO contacted it to inform it that the comment may breach
Clause 1 - the Committee found that the publication had not taken care over the
accuracy of the published information. The inaccuracy related to a serious
crime which led to the death of 3 individuals, and the attribution of a motive
to the perpetrator of the crime. It was an event which had an impact not only
locally, but nationwide. By linking the crime to BLM when police had had made
an explicit statement to the contrary, the Committee found that the breach
represented a significant inaccuracy. In addition, the removal of the comment
under complaint and the banning of the user did not represent a correction of
the significantly inaccurate information.
IPSO found that the publication failed to take care of the
accuracy of a reader comment after it was brought to its attention that the
comment may be inaccurate. For this reason, the publication breached Clause 1.
Date complaint received: 27/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/02/2021
Back to ruling listing