Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17365-23 Smith v The Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Jamie Smith complained
to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause
1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Reinstate word 'woman' on web advice, NHS urged”, published on 9 March 2023.
2.
The article reported on a letter submitted by a campaign group which urged the
NHS to reinstate the word “woman” on web pages about cancer and pregnancy. It
reported that “at least 19 pages” on the NHS’s “website that are specific to
women’s health problems, including cervical cancer, uterine cancer and the
menopause, now use language that is non-gendered”. The article included
extracts from the campaign group’s letter as well as a statement from an NHS
spokesperson. The statement said that the website remained under “continual
review to ensure they use language that is inclusive, respectful and relevant”;
that the word “woman” remained vital to health information about women’s
health; and that the issue was currently under review.
3.
The article also appeared online on 8 March 2023 in substantially the same
format.
4.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He
said the word “woman” had not been removed from the NHS website.
5.
The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It denied that
the article claimed that the word “woman” had been removed from the NHS
website. Instead, it reported that plain-language descriptions of medical
conditions affecting biological women had been edited to use gender-neutral
language. In order to demonstrate this, the newspaper provided examples of the
changes made to the overview pages for “Ovarian cancer”, “Heavy periods”,
“Menopause”, “Cervical screening” and “Miscarriage”. The publication also
provided a Freedom of Information (FOI) response from NHS Digital 2022, in
which the organisation confirmed that the NHS website had been edited to use
gender-neutral language –specifically in relation to “cervical and ovarian
cancer” – for inclusivity and accessibility purposes.
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
6.
The complainant was concerned that the article had incorrectly reported that
the term “woman” had been removed from the NHS website. However, the article
did not report that the term “woman” had been removed entirely; rather it
reported that a campaign group had called for its “reinstatement”, from which
it would be understood that some previous references had been removed.
Moreover, the publication was able to provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that some references to “women” had been replaced by gender-neutral
language on the NHS website for medical conditions affecting biological women:
it had provided a comparison of the pages – before and after the edits – for
several health problems including cancers of the reproductive organs; the
campaign group’s open letter to the NHS; and the FOI response the group had
received from NHS Digital in 2022 confirming the changes made. The Committee
considered that the publication had demonstrated that it had taken care over
the accuracy of the article, and it did not establish any inaccuracies
requiring correction. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
7.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
8.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 09/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/06/2023