Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 14506-23 Queen Elizabeth's
Grammar School v lancashiretelegraph.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that lancashiretelegraph.co.uk breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“QEGS Blackburn pupil 'in hospital after classmate attack'”, published on 26
January 2023.
2.
The article – which appeared online only – reported on an incident which took
place at a primary school. The article reported that “according to a parent of
a child at the school, [a] pupil was ‘beaten around the head’ by a classmate
with a metal water bottle, and as a result was taken to hospital for
treatment”. It said that “it is believed the incident happened yesterday -
Wednesday, January 25 - with pupils in the class reportedly being told to stay
at home today.”
3.
It went on to report that “’children who were around at the time saw blood
everywhere and lots of screaming,’ said the parent, who asked not to be named”
and “students in the class where the attack took place have been sent home ‘for
their own safety’, she added.” The article further reported “a spokesperson for
QEGS said: ‘All school matters are dealt with as appropriate in accordance with
the established, clear and robust procedures and policies.’”
4.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 – it
said that it had given a misleading, distorted, and sensationalised account of
the incident described in the article. Firstly, it said that describing a pupil
as having been “beaten around the head” was inaccurate. The correct position
was that, following a verbal altercation, a child had punched another in the
mouth while holding a drinking bottle in the same hand.
5.
It further said it was inaccurate to say students in the class had been sent
home for their safety. It explained that the only children who had left the
school premises after the incident were the two children involved.
6.
The complainant speculated that the article had been based on a Facebook post.
It said the post in question was a second-hand account of events told from the
perspective of a parent of a 10-year-old. The complainant further believed that
the headline of the article was ‘clickbait’, and that the article was causing
hostility and anxiety amongst parents.
7.
The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the article
was not based on a Facebook post; rather, the publication had been contacted
anonymously via its website regarding the incident. It said a reporter had
contacted the person who got in touch to find out more details, however the
contact did not respond to their email. The publication further provided a copy
of the journalist’s email which was sent on 26 January – the date of the
article’s publication.
8.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication supplied a screenshot of the
original anonymous submission which it had been sent on 26 January. The
submission said:
“A primary school pupil at QEGS Primary was beaten
around the head by another pupil with a metal water bottle resulting in the
child being admitted to hospital. […] Children who were around at the time saw
blood everywhere and lots screaming. Children in the class have been kept off
today for their own safety.”
9.
Following this submission, the publication said it had attempted to verify this
information with the school. The publication provided the email it had sent to
the school on 26 January at 10:47am, which had asked for a response by 3pm the
same day. The email put the following allegations to the school:
“Someone has sent in information about a primary
school pupil at QEGS who was beaten around the head by another pupil with a
metal water bottle and as a result, admitted to hospital, today.
[…]
Please can someone provide a statement on this for
a story I am writing today? How badly injured was the pupil? What action is
being taken to prevent further incidents like this from happening and how are
staff going to ensure their students are protected from harm? What is your
policy for dealing with assault?”
10. The
publication said it had given the school an opportunity to provide a
comprehensive statement and to set the record straight on the incident, which
could have addressed any alleged inaccuracies in what was reported to the
publication. However, it said the school had sent back one line, which was:
“All school matters are dealt with as appropriate in accordance with the
established, clear and robust procedures and policies.” The publication said
the school had not challenged any element of the incident or offered an
alternative version of events, despite having ample opportunity to do so.
11. The
publication argued that all claims and descriptions of the incident within the
article under complaint were in speech marks or reported as speech. Therefore,
it said that the article clearly distinguished between comment and fact. It
said that the school’s failure to provide any explanation of what actually
happened in the incident meant there was nothing to suggest that the anonymous
tip was inaccurate.
12. The
publication said it was fair to characterise the incident as a child being
“beaten around the head”. It said that if someone is hit on the head with a
bottle by another person, it was accurate to state they had been beaten around
the head.
13. Further,
the publication said it had been told that students had been instructed to stay
at home and therefore this was not inaccurate.
14. The
publication disagreed that the reporting was irresponsible and sensationalist.
In regards to the headline, the publication said it was simply a description of
what the publication was told had happened.
15. The
complainant said that in any incident of such a nature, the school would always
respond in the way that it did. It said it had clear and robust procedures that
it follows with all similar incidents, and that it had a responsibility to all
its pupils and their parents and carers, and would never engage in a public
debate on such matters given the age of the children.
16. The
complainant requested the publication write it an apology acknowledging that
the article was inaccurate and accepting the school’s position.
17. The
publication did not consider this to be an appropriate course of action.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
18. The
Committee noted that the article was based on a single source. There is no
stand-alone requirement for a story to come from multiple sources – provided
care is taken over the accuracy of published information, and comment is
distinguished from fact. The Committee then turned to the specific
alleged inaccuracies within the article.
19. In
regards to the claim that “students in the class where the attack took place
have been sent home ‘for their own safety’” and “it is believed the
incident happened yesterday - Wednesday, January 25 - with pupils in the class
reportedly being told to stay at home today”, the Committee noted that this
claim had also been attributed to “a parent” - whose account the publication
had received via a submission to its website. However, this specific claim had
not been presented to the complainant for its comments in the email the
reporter had initially sent the complainant. Notwithstanding the fact that the
claim was attributed to “a parent” in the article, this claim contained a
statement of fact regarding the school’s response to an incident of pupil
safety which the complainant said was inaccurate. Given that this allegation
had not been put to the school prior to publication and was based on an
anonymous website submission from a single, unverified source – which had not
responded to requests for further information the Committee considered that
there was a failure to take care over the accuracy of this claim, and as such,
there was a breach of Clause 1(i) on this point.
20. The
allegation concerned the school’s response to a matter of its pupils’ safety
and wellbeing, and the publication had not been able to provide any information
to support its veracity. The inaccuracy was therefore significant and required
correction under Clause 1(ii). Therefore, in line with Clause 1 (ii) a
correction was required to promptly and prominently put the correct position on
record. As no correction had been offered, this represented a further
breach of Clause 1(ii).
21. The
article had stated that “according to a parent of a child at the school,
[a] pupil was ‘beaten around the head’ by a classmate with a metal water
bottle, and as a result was taken to hospital for treatment”. The publication
had contacted the school and had given it the opportunity to set the
record straight. In this instance, while the Committee could not be
certain that this claim was made by a “parent”, where both the publication and
complainant appeared to accept that a water bottle had made contact with a child’s
head during a physical argument between two children, and where the article had
attributed this comment to a member of the public, the Committee did not
consider this characterisation of the incident to be significantly inaccurate.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
22. The
complainant believed the article was clickbait, sensationalist and had led to
anxiety amongst parents at the school. Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to
publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly
inaccurate, misleading or distorted information; it does not relate to other
concerns about the presentation of material, such as that it is sensationalist
or clickbait. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
23. The
Committee considered the headline and noted that it was not in dispute that the
child who was attacked attended hospital. The article further set out the
basis for this by making clear the claims were based on the account of an
anonymous parent. For this reason, the headline was not misleading, and there
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
24. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
action required
25. Having
upheld the complaint under Clause 1(i) and Clause 1 (ii), the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the
Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the
publication of a correction and/or adjudication; the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
26. The
article had published an unsubstantiated claim about pupils being told to stay
at home for their own safety following an incident which had not been put to
the complainant for its comment prior to publication. However, the Committee
was mindful that the breach of Clause 1 arose from a single line which appeared
in the body of the article. Taking these factors into account, the Committee
considered a correction to be the appropriate remedy to this breach, making
clear the school disputed this version of events.
27. The Committee then considered the placement of this
correction. If the publication intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction
should be published as a footnote.
28. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make
clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent
Press Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 01/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/06/2023