Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17743-23 Yallop v The Daily Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Jeremy Yallop complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Covid's ghost children cannot be forgotten”,
published on 27 March 2023.
2. The
article was a comment piece which described a report from the Centre for Social
Justice (CSJ). The article reported that the number of “ghost children”,
defined as “severely absent children not at their school desks more than 50 per
cent of the time” had increased “dramatically” since the Covid lockdowns. The
article also reported that “[s]ome children are now being schooled at home.
Whilst a number will be receiving a good education, sadly evidence shows that’s
not true for the majority.”
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Covid’s lost children must not
be forgotten” and was published on 26 March in substantially the same format.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He
acknowledged that the article was a comment piece, but he said it was
inaccurate to report ”evidence show[ed]” that “the majority” of children being
educated at home were not receiving a good education. He said that no such
evidence existed, and in fact, the available evidence showed that the majority
of children being schooled at home were receiving a good education.
5. The
publication did not initially accept a breach of the Code. It referred to the
report which was the basis of the article, and said there was a difference
between children who are at home but registered with a school (which could
include severely absent children), and children educated at home who are not on
a school roll and were educated by their guardians. The publication said that
the report found there was a link between absence and poor academic attainment,
and therefore considered that the article was accurate.
6. The
complainant disputed this – and said that the report actually described “home
schooling” as referring to the arrangements during Covid restrictions – and
that this was a completely separate matter to severe absence.
7. The
publication responded, 11 days after it had received the complainant’s initial
complaint, by stating it had removed the reference to home schooling in the
online article, and had added a footnote clarification to the article which
stated:
This
article has been amended to remove reference to home schooling as it is
unrelated to absence.
8. When
IPSO began its investigation on 1 June, the publication stated that it
considered the matter was not straightforward – as many children who were
persistently absent were likely to have received some level of education at
home. In its first substantive response to IPSO’s investigation on 8 June it
offered to publish the following wording in both its print corrections and
clarifications column, and as an updated footnote:
“Our
article, ‘Covid’s ghost children cannot be forgotten’, reported that evidence
showed the majority of children educated at home did not receive a good
education. We did not make clear that this was the writer’s opinion, rather
than fact. Evidence does not show that those who are registered as home
educated receive a lesser education than children in schools.”
9. The
complainant did not accept the correction as a resolution. He said the sentence
under complaint was not an opinion – it was simply inaccurate. Furthermore, he
said that the original inaccuracy had referred to children “schooled at home”,
whereas the proposed correction by the publication referred solely to children
“registered as home educated”.
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
10. The
article had stated as fact that “evidence” showed that the “majority” of
children “schooled at home” were not receiving a good education. The
publication had not provided any evidence to support this claim, nor did it set
out what care it had taken not to publish inaccurate information when making
this claim. In these circumstances, there was a breach of Clause 1(i). As the
inaccuracy related to the education of children , and in particular the effects
of Covid on education – a topic of national importance – the inaccuracy was
significant and required correction under Clause 1(ii).
11. The
Committee next considered the publication’s proposed correction. The Committee
considered that – notwithstanding the fact that the article was an opinion
piece – the claim regarding “evidence” was a claim of fact, rather than a
matter of opinion, and the claim of fact was inaccurate. The inaccurate claim
of fact was not acknowledged in the wording proposed by the publication, which
said that this was an opinion that had not been distinguished as such. In addition,
the correction referred to children who were “registered as home educated”
which, as had been set out by the complainant, did not have the same meaning as
“children schooled at home” – which had a much broader meaning. The Committee
also raised concerns that the publication had not offered a substantive
correction on the point, despite knowing the complainant’s position, until
IPSO’s investigation on 1 June – two months after first being made aware of the
error, and after email exchanges with the complainant in which it defended the
accuracy of the article. In these circumstances, there was a breach of Clause
1(ii).
Conclusions
12. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
action required
13. Having
upheld the complaint, 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 an
adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
14. The
article reported, as fact, that there was evidence which stated the majority of
children schooled at home were not receiving a good education. The publication
had not been able to provide the evidence which showed this. The publication
had offered a correction – but not one that the Committee considered fulfilled
the requirements set out in Clause 1 (ii). However, where the publication had
deleted the information from the online article and offered remedial action,
the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The
correction should acknowledge that the article had referred to evidence which
stated the majority of children schooled at home were not receiving a good
education, and should also put the correct position on record, namely that
there was no such evidence.
15. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The correction
should be published in the publication’s print Corrections and Clarifications
column and as a footnote to the online article. 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: 27/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/08/2023