Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 13067-21 O Reilly v dailystar.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. AJ O
Reilly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailystar.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Violent jackals set to invade UK as experts warn of
'fastest expansion ever witnessed'”, published on 12th December 2021.
2. The
sub-headline of the online article reported that “[s]cientists have warned that
jackals are coming to Britain in huge numbers after rapidly expanding across
Europe - and experts say the beasts will howl and hunt all through the night”.
It stated that the jackals were “travelling across Europe towards the UK”,
after being spotted in Italy, France, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, and
Germany. The article was accompanied by a number of photos of animals,
captioned: “[t]he mammals have exploited the declines of wolves”; “[t]he
hunters are already in Italy, France, Germany and much of Europe”; and “[t]he
animal may not cause too much disruption, more-balanced boffins argue”.
3. The
complainant said that the headline was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to
state that jackals were “set to invade UK as experts warn of 'fastest expansion
ever witnessed’” as no experts had said that jackals were near to or set to
come to the UK. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate as
the photographs included in the article depicted foxes, rather than jackals.
4. The
publication accepted that the original version of the article may have implied
that scientists had specifically warned that jackals were due to invade the UK,
whereas they had warned that this was the “largest range expansion for a mammal
that we have ever witnessed". Within three days of being made aware of the
complaint, the publication amended the article to make clear that jackals
“could” be set to invade the UK and that they “may” be coming to Britain. The
publication also accepted that the article had originally included photographs
of foxes, rather than jackals; an error it said it was extremely regretful of.
At the same time as amending the text of the article, it also removed the
photographs of foxes and replaced them with photographs of jackals. During
IPSO’s investigation, the publication further offered to publish a footnote
correction stating:
A
previous version of this article stated as fact that 'scientists warned that
jackals are coming to the UK', and included images of foxes instead of jackals.
The article has since been amended to depict jackals correctly, and to make
clear that scientists had not specified that jackals would head to Britain, but
that there is a possibility due to the 'fastest expansion ever witnessed'. We
are happy to clarify this.
5. The
complainant said that the amendments and proposed correction did not resolve
his complaint. He said that the article remained inaccurate, in particular the
sub-headline which now stated “[s]cientists have warned that jackals may be
coming to Britain in huge numbers after rapidly expanding across Europe - and
experts say the beasts will howl and hunt all through the night”; he said that
no scientists had mentioned jackals in relation to Britain and that the
publication had not clarified how these land mammals were going to travel from
mainland Europe to Great Britain.
6. Toward
the end of IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish the
proposed correction at the top of the article.
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
7. The
newspaper had accepted that the original version of the article may have
implied that scientists had specifically warned that jackals were set to invade
the UK, which was not the case. The publication had provided no evidence to
support its claim that jackals were “set to invade UK” or that scientists had
warned this. It had been unable to substantiate either the claim in the
headline or the sub-headline and this amounted to a failure to take care over
the accuracy of the claims. It was the Committee’s view that the publication
should have been able to verify the information before publishing it, and the
newspaper had, therefore, not taken care not to publish inaccurate information,
and there was a breach of Clause 1(i).
8. The
publication had also accepted that the article had inaccurately used
photographs of foxes, rather than jackals. There was no dispute that the
original pictures were inaccurate, and this amounted to a further failure to
take care by the publication. There was a further breach of Clause 1(i).
9. The
inaccuracy regarding the claim that jackals were set to invade the UK appeared in
the headline, and as such it constituted a significant inaccuracy and therefore
required correction under Clause 1(ii). Further, the article had included three
photographs of foxes, rather than jackals, which in the context of an article
which reported solely on jackals, the Committee considered was significant. A
correction was also required under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
10. The
Committee turned to the question of whether the action undertaken by the
publication was sufficient to avoid a further breach of Clause 1 (ii). Within
three days of receiving the complaint, the publication had amended the article
to make clear that jackals “could” be set to invade the UK and that they “may”
be coming to Britain, and it also replaced the photographs of foxes with ones
of jackals. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish a footnote
correction which acknowledged the inaccuracies and put the correct position on
record. Toward the end of IPSO’s investigation, the publication further offered
to publish this correction in a more prominent position below the headline. The
Committee expressed concerns that the publication’s offer of correction had
developed throughout the process, rather than an immediate offer to publish a
correction of due prominence. However, where the article had been amended
within three days of receipt of the complaint, and where a duly prominent
correction was offered during IPSO’s process, on balance, the Committee found
that the correction had been offered with due prominence and promptness, and
there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusion(s)
11. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 13/12/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/05/2022
Back to ruling listing