Resolution Statement – 13593-16 Gibbins v
Express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Angela Gibbins complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in articles headlined “Calls for British Council boss
who blasted Prince George on ‘d*******’ post to be sacked”, published on 26
July, and “Outrage as British Council boss blasts Prince George on a post
branding him a ‘d*******’”, published on 27 July 2016.
2. Both articles reported that the complainant had
commented under a photograph of Prince George that “had a caption branding the
heir to the throne a ‘f******* d*******’”.
3. The complainant said that another Facebook user had
shared a meme on Facebook which attracted hundreds of comments. A meme is an
image, often accompanied by a short amount of text, which is easily shared on
social media. In this case, the meme consisted of an image of Prince George
accompanied by the words “I know he’s only two years old, but Prince George
already looks like a fucking dickhead”.
The complainant had made comments about children and privilege in a
sub-thread conversation with friends. However, she had not made the “fucking
dickhead” comment or endorsed it. She said that the articles claimed that she
had done so, which was inaccurate.
4. The publication denied that the articles alleged that
the complainant had referred to Prince George using the words in the meme. They
said that they had reported that she had commented on the meme, which was
correct.
Relevant Code Provisions
4. 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.
Mediated Outcome
5. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
6. Following IPSO’s intervention, the newspaper offered
to amend the headline of both articles to refer to a “Facebook post”, rather
than “d******** post”. It offered to add the following additional sentence to
the introduction of both articles: “Both the photograph and the caption had
been posted by someone else”.
7. The complainant said that this resolved her complaint
to IPSO under Clause 1.
8. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 24/11/2016
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/04/2017