Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12405-21 Horner v express.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. David
Horner complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Army sent in as border crisis explodes – desperate EU
forced to beg UK for help”, published on 9 December 2021.
2. The
headline of the online article was followed by the sub-heading “BRITAIN will
send 140 military engineers to Poland to support its efforts to deal with a
crisis at the border with Belarus, as the EU desperately attempts to stem the
influx of migrants entering the bloc”. The article reported that the EU had
introduced restrictive measures against Belarus and that NATO had accused the
country of trying to use immigration as a tool to destabilise the EU. It also
included the comments by the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace MP, who said that
the UK’s commitment to “European security” was “unwavering”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate to report that the EU, rather
than an individual member state – Poland – had requested support from the UK
government in dealing with migrant crisis at its border with Belarus. He said
that the headline was unsupported by the text of the article.
4. The
publication did not accept that the article breached the Editors’ Code. It did
not consider that the headline was inaccurate or misleading. The article
reported on the migrant crisis at the Poland-Belarus border – an entry point to
the EU – and had been based upon a government press release that stated that
the UK had come to “Poland and Lithuania’s aid after they requested support” to
deal with the issue. It also noted that, according to a report by the BBC,
Poland had “EU backing” to restrict the flow of migrants into the bloc, with EU
officials regularly commenting on the crisis. It further suggested that a
request from one member state was akin to a request from the EU as a whole,
noting the reference to “European security” in the Defence Secretary’s
statement.
5.
Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint, in a gesture of goodwill,
the publication amended the headline of the online article to refer to “EU
nations” rather than the “EU”. The complainant did not, however, consider this
sufficient and requested that the matter be considered by the Complaints
Committee.
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
6. While
the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press is free to editorialise, the terms
of Clause 1 (Accuracy) are explicit in their requirement that headline
statements should be supported by the text of the article.
7. In
this instance, the headline of the online article made the clear assertion that
a “desperate EU” had begged the UK government for its support in dealing with
the migrant crisis at the Poland-Belarus border. Where the article had been
based on a government press release which stated that the request had been made
directly by two individual nation states, Poland and Lithuania, not the
European Union itself, this was inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by the
text of the article. The article did not establish that any request was made by
the EU to the UK government, or that any other interaction that had occurred
between the EU and the UK that could reasonably be characterised as a request
for help. The Committee did not accept that direct actions undertaken by member
states equated to actions undertaken by the union as a whole. As such, the
publication of this headline amounted to a clear failure by the newspaper to
take care, raising a breach of Clause 1 (i).
8. The
inaccuracy was significant, where it appeared prominently in the headline and
related to a matter of international concern. As such, it required correction
under Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’ Code.
9. While
the publication had amended the headline, upon receipt of the complaint, this
was insufficient to correct the inaccuracy of the original headline and to meet
the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Neither a clarification nor a correction was
offered. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
10. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, 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 an adjudication, the terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
12. The
Committee considered that the headline inaccurately and misleadingly reported
that the EU had requested support from the UK government, which was not
supported by the article. The Committee considered that the appropriate remedy
was the publication of a correction to put the correct position on record.
13. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. This correction
should appear as a standalone correction in the online Corrections and
Clarification’s column. It should also appear at the foot of the online
article. The wording of this correction should be agreed with IPSO in advance
and should make clear that it had been published following an upheld ruling by
the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 9/12/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/04/2022
Back to ruling listing