Resolution
Statement – 14035-23 Tucker v oxfordmail.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Robin Tucker
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that oxfordmail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Not Our Future plans leaflet
drop against Oxford 15 minute neighbourhoods and car ban”, published on 6
January 2023.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – reported on a leaflet
criticising Oxfordshire County Council's planned traffic measures which a named
campaign group were intending to circulate around Oxford. The article reported that "plans by
both councils to create six so-called '15 minute neighbourhoods' have been
fiercely opposed by many in the city." It also said that a “consultation
showed most respondents in the city objected to the plans."
3. The complainant said the
article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He disputed that there were plans
for six minute neighbourhoods in Oxford, but rather six traffic filters. He
also said the article was inaccurate to report that "most respondents in
the city objected to the plans". He said that the public consultation did
not show this, and opinion polling - undertaken by a separate organisation -
showed that the majority of Oxford residents were in favour of the traffic
filters.
4.
Upon receipt of the complaint, and in an effort to resolve the complaint, the
publication removed the reference to the “six” 15-minute neighbourhoods.
Regarding the consultation, the publication did not accept the report was
inaccurate. It said that in the Oxfordshire County Council-prepared traffic
filters study showed that 7% of people (656 respondents) “supported/agreed”
with the scheme, which was outweighed by negative responses. Notwithstanding
this, the publication offered to amend the article in an attempt to
resolve the complaint by stating that the consultation “received more comments
with concerns than were supportive of the plans”. It further offered to publish
a footnote clarification which would reference the removal of the number “six”.
5. In response, the complainant
said that the amended sentence, “Plans to create so-called '15 minute
neighbourhoods' have been fiercely opposed by many in the city” was technically
accurate, but was still misleading as what was planned was not 15 minute
neighbourhoods, but traffic filters to reduce the amount of traffic. Further,
the complainant believed the sentence, “A consultation showed most respondents
in the city objected to the plans, which were nevertheless approved by
councillors” should be deleted as he believed the consultation did not show
that most respondents in the city objected to the plans.
6. On 12 April, as a gesture of
goodwill, the publication offered the following footnote correction:
“An
earlier version of this article referenced plans for six 15-minute
neighbourhoods. However, whilst there are plans for six traffic filters
splitting the areas into different districts as detailed in an interview Cllr
Duncan Enright gave to the Sunday Times, talks of 15-minute neighbourhoods
alongside this scheme have not specifically detailed an exact number of the
so-called neighbourhoods. We are happy to clarify this in a bid to avoid
confusion.”
7. The publication also offered
to amend the article regarding the consultation to report:
“Nevertheless,
plans were approved by councillors – despite a consultation showing just 7% of
respondents – 656 people – supported or agreed with the benefits when asked for
comments on the scheme’s benefits. However, having been asked the same
question, 1,240 people said it would move traffic to other areas, 764 people
disagreed with the scheme, 444 felt it would increase congestion, 432 felt it
would increase pollution and 403 said it will result in increased journey
times.”
8. The complainant said that the
claim “splitting the areas into different districts as detailed in an interview
Cllr Duncan Enright gave to the Sunday Times” was inaccurate and misleading and
should be removed. While the complainant accepted that the amendments to
the online article contained accurate data, he still considered it misleading
and proposed alternative wording.
Relevant
Clause 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.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The complaint was not
resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore
began an investigation into the matter.
10. During IPSO’s investigation
the publication offered to publish the following footnote clarification:
"An
earlier version of this article referenced plans for six 15-minute
neighbourhoods. However, whilst there are plans for six traffic filters, talks
of 15-minute neighbourhoods alongside this scheme have not specifically
detailed an exact number of the so-called neighbourhoods. We are happy to
clarify this in a bid to avoid confusion."
11. As well as replacing the
sentence “A consultation showed most respondents
in the city objected to the plans, which were nevertheless approved by
councillors” with the following:
"Nevertheless, plans were approved by
councillors – despite a consultation showing just 7% of respondents – 656
people – supported or agreed with the benefits when asked for comments on the
scheme’s benefits. However, having been asked the same question, 1,240 people
said it would move traffic to other areas, 764 people disagreed with the
scheme, 444 felt it would increase congestion, 432 felt it would increase
pollution and 403 said it will result in increased journey times. Whilst 379
people said public transport needs to be more frequent/reliable."
12.
The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
13. 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: 23/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/04/2023
Back to ruling listing