Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12783-21 Kay v express.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Anthony
Kay complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Unvaccinated DON’T get to live the lives the rest of us do, blasts CAROLE
MALONE”, published on 11 December 2021.
2. The
article was a comment piece which commented on a weekend the writer spent in
Copenhagen. The article praised Denmark’s current approach to Covid-19
restrictions and suggested that its population understood that for the country
to stay open you need to be vaccinated. It further argued that “As for the 5m
adults [Brits] still refusing the jab – they’re the reason we’re all at risk of
restrictions. It’s these people who’ll put a strain on the NHS if they catch
covid not the vaccinated who are unlikely to be hospitalised. This country
remains vulnerable because of THEIR human rights.” The article also asked the
reader to “See how much good [people who refused the vaccine’s] human rights
are when they're strapped to a ventilator gasping for breath”.
3. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate to refer to the “5m adults [Brits]
still refusing the jab” as figures published by the UKHSA shortly after the
publication of the article suggested that 23.5 million people in England had
not received any doses of the vaccine. The complainant said that if one
deducted the population of children who are not eligible, that left 15 million
people – three times the number referred to in the article. The complainant
also disputed the claim that people who chose not to be vaccinated were “the
reason we’re all at risk of restrictions. It’s these people who’ll put a strain
on the NHS if they catch covid not the vaccinated who are unlikely to be
hospitalised. This country remains vulnerable because of THEIR human rights” as
it attributed blame to the unvaccinated and omitted to mention that the vaccine
does not prevent infection or transmission. The complainant further added that
the UKHSA figures indicated that “four out of five Covid-19 deaths in the last
month occurred among the double and triple vaccinated”, and noted that at the
time of his original complaint, the most recent variant had only been found in
the vaccinated, and the majority of Covid-19 patients in hospital at that time
were vaccinated. He also said that the language used in the article was
insensitive.
4. The
complainant also said the article breached Clause 3 and Clause 12 because it
shamed and demonised those who have chosen not to receive the vaccine.
5. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. The newspaper commented that
the 5 million figure had been widely reported at the time of publication and
provided several examples of where this figure had been reported by different
newspapers.
6. The
publication also said that since the article was published, the complainant's
suggested figure of 23.5 million unvaccinated people had been investigated and
debunked by a fact-checking website, which also reported the figure of
approximately 5 million as quoted in Carole's column. The publication quoted
the report which said: “To estimate the size of the population eligible for
vaccination, the government uses the ONS estimate for the population aged 12
and over, which is 48,375,273. With 43,250,509 first doses having been given in
England, that would leave an estimated 5.1 million eligible people who have not
received a dose of vaccine.“
7. The
fact-checking report stated that the number of unvaccinated peopled was
dependent on which population estimate was used, but that either population
estimate gave a result of “considerably lower” than 23.5 million. The report
claimed that The Office for National Statistics (ONS) had estimated that the
population was 55.6 million, in its latest estimate of 2020, whereas the UKHSA counted
62,724,319 people in England registered with the NHS. The report made clear
that neither data set was infallible, but that the government used the ONS
estimate. This gave the figure of 5.1 million eligible people who had not
received a dose of the vaccine in England.
8. The
publication said that the article was an opinion piece and was clearly
presented as such. The publication also stated that while vaccinations did not
completely reduce the risk of infection and transmission of Covid, multiple
studies had found that vaccines had an impact on the chances of catching or
transmitting Covid-19 and that vaccinations lowered the risk of transmission
and infection of the virus, including the severity of symptoms
9. The
publication did not accept that article breached Clause 3 and Clause 12 as they
were not engaged.
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.
Clause 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Clause
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
Committee considered the disputed figure of 5 million eligible unvaccinated
Britons. It acknowledged that this figure had been widely reported during the
time the article was published and that the publication had provided several
examples of contemporaneous articles which also published the figure.
11. The
Committee further noted that the fact-checking report calculated two possible
estimates of this figure based on two data sets which had forecast two
different figures of the English population. The publication highlighted the
data in the report which was based on the ONS’s estimate of the population
which concluded that there were approximately 5.1 million eligible people in
England who were unvaccinated
12. The
Committee recognised that the widely reported 5 million figure was based on an
estimation of the population, for which there were different approximations.
However, where the UK government used the ONS data to calculate the population,
and where the 5 million figure had been widely reported, the Committee did not
consider the figure of 5 million Britons to be significantly inaccurate and
there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
13. The
Committee understood that the complainant also believed that it was inaccurate
to claim that the unvaccinated were “the reason we’re all at risk of
restrictions. It’s these people who’ll put a strain on the NHS if they catch
covid not the vaccinated who are unlikely to be hospitalised” as it did not
mention that vaccinated people were also able to contract Covid-19 and infect
others. The Committee noted that the article did not make any claims that the
vaccine prevented infection and transmission, but rather noted that the
“strain” referred to by the columnist related to the higher likelihood of
hospitalisation among the unvaccinated. As the publication had noted, multiple
studies existed which showed vaccines decrease the severity of Covid-19
symptoms and, as such, the Committee was satisfied that there was a basis for
this claim. The Committee also had regard for context in which the claim
appeared: it was clearly presented as a comment piece and therefore necessarily
reflected the columnist’s interpretation of the situation. The Committee also made clear that, while the
complainant found the article to be insensitive, this did not make the article
misleading or inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
14. With
regards to the complaint under Clause 3, the complainant believed the article
was demonising and shaming towards the unvaccinated. Clause 3 generally relates
to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and
extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. As the complainant’s
concerns did not relate to this, there was no breach of Clause 3.
15. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 12, again, as he considered
that the publication demonised and shamed the unvaccinated. As Clause 12 is
designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination
based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or
any physical or mental illness or disability. The complainant’s concern did not
relate to an individual, nor is choosing not to take the Covid vaccination a
protected characteristic. There was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusion(s)
16. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
17. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/12/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/05/2022
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing