Resolution
Statement – 27808-20 Ross v Bishop's Stortford Independent
Summary
of Complaint
1. Brian
Ross complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Bishop's
Stortford Independent breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in articles headlined “Campaigners join forces to protest against
airport” and “March may be out of step with climate concerns”, both of which
were published on 26 August 2020.
2. The
article headlined “Campaigners join forces to protest against airport” reported
on a protest arranged by Extinction Rebellion (XR) East Herts against plans to
expand Stansted Airport. The article said that Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE)
and XR East Herts had “joined forces” to arrange the protest.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline
“Extinction Rebellion mobilises in Bishop's Stortford against Stansted Airport
expansion”.
4. The
article headlined “March may be out of step with climate concerns” was an
editorial piece set out the newspaper’s view on the protests. It also stated
that that both SSE and XR were planning to “take to the streets” to protest.
5. The
complainant, the Deputy Chairman of SSE, said that both articles were
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) as he considered that both articles
gave the impression that SSE was associated with XR, when in fact there is no
affiliation between the two organisations. He said that the implication was
damaging to the SSE, and SSE had a long-established reputation for running its
campaign in a lawful and non-disruptive manner, and its ethos is contrary to
the one espoused by XR. Moreover, the complainant expressed his concerns that
no member of SSE had been contacted for comment by the publication, despite the
fact that the publication had the contact details of several key SSE members.
6. The
newspaper said it accepted it was inaccurate to state that SSE and XR had
“joined forces.” The error was made due to a press release sent to the
newspaper by XR East Herts, in which the protest was referred to as the “XR
Stop Stansted Airport Expansion” protest. It had assumed, given the name of the
protest and the fact that both organisations were working to prevent the
expansion of Stansted Airport, that SSE had a role in the protests. It
accepted, however, that their initial assumption was incorrect, and had
attempted to rectify the inaccuracy by printing a letter written by the SSE
Chairman putting the correct position on record, and had also made clear in
their subsequent coverage of the protest that XR and SSE were not affiliated.
It also amended the online article to make clear that the two organisations
were not affiliated, and had emailed an apology to the Chairman and Deputy
Chairman of SSE.
7. The
complainant said that the action offered by the publication was not sufficient
to resolve his complaint. He said that, whereas the article headlined
“Campaigners join forces to protest against airport” had appeared on page 5 of
the newspaper and had taken up the top half of the page, the letter from the
SSE Chairman putting the true position on record was published on the
lower-half of page 11, and was not accompanied by an Editor’s note
acknowledging the original inaccuracy and apologising for the error. The
complainant also considered that a correction should be published online,
acknowledging the original inaccuracy and putting the correct position on
record.
Relevant
Code Provisions
8.
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. The
publication offered to print the following correction, to appear on page 5 of
the newspaper or further forward:
In our
edition of 26 August, we inaccurately reported that Stop Stansted Expansion had
“joined forces” with Extinction Rebellion for a protest. This was not the case,
and we would like to make clear that Stop Stansted Expansion is in no way affiliated
with Extinction Rebellion. We would like to apologise to Stop Stansted
Expansion for this error.
11. The publication also offered to publish the
following wording as an amendment to the online version of the article:
In a
previous version of this article, we inaccurately reported that Stop Stansted
Expansion had “joined forces” with Extinction Rebellion for a protest. This was
not the case, and we would like to make clear that Stop Stansted Expansion is
in no way affiliated with Extinction Rebellion. We would like to apologise to
Stop Stansted Expansion for this error
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: 03/09/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/10/2020