Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12885-21 Kay v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Anthony Kay complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “It's
time to punish Britain's 5 million vaccine refuseniks”, published on 10
December 2021.
2. The
article was a weekly column, which commented on measures the columnist believed
Britons who had chosen not to receive the Covid-19 vaccine should face, while
also making clear he was not in favour of compulsory vaccination. The columnist
compared Britain’s approach to vaccine hesitancy to other countries which had
brought in greater measures to encourage people to get the vaccine such as
vaccine passports and fines. The headline stated, “It's time to punish
Britain's 5 million vaccine refuseniks”, and this figure was repeated in the
article: “There are still 5 million unvaccinated British adults, who through
fear, ignorance, irresponsibility or sheer stupidity refuse to be jabbed.” The
columnist also commented on the efficacy of the vaccine: “Of course, it’s not
foolproof. Nothing is. People who have been vaccinated can still contract and
pass on the virus. But vaccination substantially reduces the risk of serious
illness and hospitalisation, which is why medical experts are unanimous in
their view that the more people who are vaccinated the better the chance we all
have of beating this virus.” The columnist also asserted that “We are all
paying a heavy price for this hard core of the unvaccinated”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “It's time to punish Britain's five million vaccine refuseniks: They
put us all at risk of more restrictions, says ANDREW NEIL. So why shouldn't we
curb some of their freedoms?”
4. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 as he considered the five
million figure referring to unvaccinated Britons to be inaccurate. The
complainant said that figures published by the UK Health Security Agency
(UKHSA) shortly after the publication of the article indicated that 23.5
million people in England were unvaccinated, which would suggest a figure of 15
million unvaccinated people, once children were deducted.
5. The
complainant also said the headline was sensationalist and that the article
contained intemperate language as well as presenting the view that everything
is the fault of the unvaccinated. He said that the publication was too willing
“to accept the Government’s narrative that ‘5 million vaccine refuseniks’ are
to blame.” In addition, the complainant said the article ignored what he
considered to be relevant information about the efficacy of the vaccine and the
frequency with which vaccinated people have been infected with variants. The
complainant also said that the UKHSA indicated that four out of five Covid-19
deaths in December had occurred among the double and triple vaccinated, and
that the triple vaccinated were three times more likely than the unvaccinated to
catch the latest variant.
6. The
complainant said the article breached Clause 3 and Clause 12 as it used
language to shame, vilify and demonise unvaccinated people, which served to
harass and discriminate against this group. He also expressed concerns that it
incited hatred and violence towards the “unvaccinated community”.
7. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the
figure of five million eligible unvaccinated adults in Britain had been widely
reported and was accurate. It noted that the Chief Medical Officer for England
had said in September 2021 that “there are five million or so people who are
eligible for vaccines now who haven’t been vaccinated”. The publication also
stated that the figure corresponded with analysis by another publication and
provided several examples of instances in which this figure had been reported
in the press at the time of publication. It further mentioned that the Health
Secretary had made reference to this number shortly after publication, when he
was urging people to take up the vaccine in December 2021.
8. The
newspaper said the 23.5 million figure advanced by the complainant was
published by an anti-vaccine website and was irrelevant as it claimed to be the
total number of unvaccinated people in England, whereas the article under
complaint was referring to unvaccinated British adults who are eligible for the
vaccine but have refused to take it. The publication also supplied a link to a
fact-checking website which had been published since the publication of the
article, which debunked the complainant’s alternative figure of 23.5 million,
and found that, based on an ONS estimate of the population, 5.1 million
eligible people had not received a dose of the vaccine in England.
9. The
publication added that the columnist was free to express his views and to be
critical of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated, and that the Code
specifically enshrined the right for newspapers to inform, be partisan, to
challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain. It also said the complainant’s
points querying the efficacy of the vaccine did not undermine the accuracy of
the article.
10. The
publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 3 or Clause 12. It said
while it appreciated the complainant disagreed with the scope of these Clauses,
the complaint did not engage them.
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
11. The
Committee considered the disputed figure of five million British adults who
refuse to get jabbed. 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 as well as the Chief Medical Officer for England who had quoted this
figure. The Committee considered that the publication was entitled to rely on
the figure which had been cited by the Chief Medical Officer for England, who
was closely associated with the vaccination programme. It was therefore
satisfied that the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of
the claim that there was five million British adults who refuse to get jabbed.
There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).
12. The
complainant had cited research, published subsequent to the article under
complaint, which he considered demonstrated that the figure of five million was
inaccurate, and in fact was considerably higher. The Committee did not agree
that the research cited by the complainant demonstrated that the figure given
in the article was significantly misleading and noted the five million figure
had been cited by the Chief Medical Officer for England and the Health
Secretary. Where the publication had been able to provide a basis for the
figure contained in the article and the complainant had not demonstrated it to
be inaccurate, the Committee did not find a significant inaccuracy which
required correction. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.
13. The
Committee also considered the complainant’s concerns that the headline was
“sensationalist” and that the article included intemperate language. The
article was distinguished as an opinion piece and the columnist was entitled to
express his views on the benefits of restrictions against the unvaccinated; the
strain he felt they placed on the NHS; and the “heavy price” paid by the
vaccinated “for this hard core of the unvaccinated”. Concerns that the headline
was sensationalist did not engage the Code where the Committee was satisfied
there was no breach of Clause 1.
14.
Further, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns about the
article’s claims regarding the efficacy of the vaccine. It noted that the
article did make clear that vaccinated people could still contract and infect
others with the virus. The article did not make any claims of fact regarding
the specific variant of Covid-19 infecting patients who were being treated in
hospitals, and whether they were vaccinated or not, but simply claimed that
“vaccination substantially reduces the risk of serious illness and
hospitalisation” and “As long as they [the unvaccinated] can be numbered in the
millions, the nation will remain unnecessarily vulnerable to the latest
variant”. As the vaccine has been demonstrated to reduce serious illness and
hospitalisation, the Committee was satisfied that there was a basis for these
claims. The Committee also had regard for the 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. There
was no breach of Clause 1.
15. With
regards to the complaint under Clause 3, the complainant believed the article
was demonising and shaming towards unvaccinated people. Clause 3 generally
relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature
and extent of their contact with the subject of the story. The complainant’s
concerns did not relate to this, and there was no breach of Clause 3.
16. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 12, again, as he considered
that the publication vilified, demonised and shamed unvaccinated people. 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-19 vaccination a protected characteristic. There was no breach
of Clause 12.
Conclusion(s)
17. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/12/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2022
Back to ruling listing