Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 28194-20 Alfa Travel v walesonline.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Alfa
Travel complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
walesonline.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Anger as coachload of people from Bolton heads to
Tenby after being forced to leave Porthcawl”, published on 22 September 2020.
2. The
article reported on a holiday tour coach, which it described as a “a coach load
of Elvis fans from Bolton” who were travelling “for the cancelled Elvis
festival” and had “come all the way from Bolton”. It said that the coach had
been “turned away from Porthcawl” and would instead travel to Tenby where the
tourists would be “transferred to a sister hotel in Tenby”. The article stated
that “Bolton is at the centre of a local lockdown in northern England”. The
article made clear that, whilst there were restrictions in place in Bolton,
residents of Bolton were allowed to go on holiday with members of their
household. The article contained a comment from the coach tour operator, who
stated that the coach “was not solely comprised of holiday-makers from Bolton,
but from customers across the north-west of England”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said
that the coach had not originated from, nor stopped at, Bolton, and that it was
therefore inaccurate to describe it as having “come all the way from Bolton”.
It said that it was inaccurate to describe the coach as a “coachload” of people
from Bolton as only one passenger had been from the city of Bolton, and a
further two from the wider borough of Bolton.
4. The
complainant also said that it was inaccurate that the coach consisted of Elvis
fans, or that the purpose of the coach was to go to the Elvis festival in
Porthcawl.
5. The
complainant also said that the coach did not travel to Pembrokeshire, nor did
the hotel transfer the passengers to a sister hotel in Tenby. It noted that the
coach returned to Warrington, where the coach originated from, at the earliest
possible opportunity allowing for drivers’ hours regulations.
6. The
complainant also disputed that it was accurate to describe Bolton as being in a
“local lockdown” and said the correct position was that it was subject to
enhanced restrictions.
7. The
complainant also noted that it had been contacted for comment prior to the
publication of the article, but that the article had been published less than
an hour and a half after they had received an email asking for comment. The
complainant had then supplied its statement.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that it had got the
information from another publication’s article which had reported that “a coach
of Elvis fans from Bolton who had booked tickets to the festival decided to
head to Tenby in Pembrokeshire instead”. It noted a further publication had
repeated these claims, referring to the initial article. The publication also
noted that the issue was attracting attention on social media and that it
wished to publish the article in a timely way. The publication did not believe
it was misleading to describe the passengers as “coachload of holidaymakers
from Bolton and the north-west of England”, where the complainant accepted some
people were from Bolton and some were from the north-west. The publication also
noted that many areas of the north-west were subject to various forms of
lockdown restrictions, and that it had significantly higher rates of Covid-19,
and that the story did not depend on all, or most, of the holidaymakers being
from Bolton specifically. The publication said that as the coach contained
passengers from Bolton, it was not inaccurate to report that the coach had
“come all the way from Bolton”, as it was the passengers that were the focus of
the article.
9. The
publication said it had taken care when reporting that the coach passengers
would stay in Tenby by contacting the hotel in Tenby. It also contacted the
hotel in Porthcawl which confirmed that the coach would leave due to the local
lockdown. The staff member had also told the publication that the intention was
for the coach to continue to Pembrokeshire. The publication said, therefore,
that the article had been correct at the time of publication, and offered to
amend the article to reflect the subsequent changes to the coach’s schedule.
10. The
publication said that the term “local lockdown” was a widely used phrase that
could describe various types of restrictions due to Covid-19 in the UK. It said
that where, at the time of publication, all Bolton’s pubs and restaurants were
closed and people were not allowed to socialise with anyone outside of their
household, it was not inaccurate to describe Bolton as being in a “local
lockdown”.
11. The
publication said that the story had already been discussed on social media and
that it had wanted to publish the article in a timely way. It also noted that
the article had made clear that the coach was not breaking any rules, and the
newspaper had not asked the complainant to comment on any allegations against
it. It noted that after receiving the statement the article was amended to
include a quote from the complainant on the same day the article was published.
It said that the headline was amended the following day to state “Anger as
coach with people from Bolton heads to Tenby after being forced to leave
Porthcawl”. At the start of IPSO’s investigation the publication published the
following correction:
An
earlier version of this article said that it was a coachload of people from
Bolton. There was only one person from the town and two from the Bolton borough
on the coach with the rest from across the north west.
During
IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to publish the following as a
correction as a footnote to the article:
A
previous version of this article reported that the coachload of people had
travelled 'all the way from Bolton' for an Elvis Festival, and then were
heading to Pembrokeshire. This was based on information available at the time.
We have since been informed that in fact, the coach was not visiting for the Elvis
Festival, and that the coach company subsequently sent the coach back to
Warrington. We have also been asked to clarify that the coach did not originate
from Bolton. We are happy to clarify this.
Relevant
Code 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
12. The
article had reported that the coach had “come all the way from Bolton”, when
the coach had never stopped at Bolton. The publication had been in contact with
the complainant prior to the publication of the article, but had not asked
whether the coach had come from, stopped at, or transferred through Bolton. The
article had also reported that both the headline and article had referred to a
“coachload” of people from Bolton, when only one person was from Bolton, and
two were from the surrounding area. Whilst the allegation had appeared online
in other publications, where the publication had not taken any further steps to
verify the information and had presented it as a fact, this represented a
failure to take care under Clause 1(i). When at the time of publication Bolton
had a very high rate of Covid-19 infections, this misled readers to believe
that more people from the city were on the coach than was accurate, and
therefore this was a significant inaccuracy and required a correction under
Clause 1(ii).
13. The
publication had offered to publish a correction. It had stated that the “bus
did not originate from Bolton”, however it did not make clear that the coach
had never stopped in Bolton. There was a further breach of Clause 1(ii) on this
point.
14. The
article had also reported that the passengers were travelling in order to
attend an Elvis festival. The publication had again taken this from another
article. Prior to the publication of the article, it had taken steps to verify
the information by contacting the complainant, but had published the article
prior to receiving the complainant’s response. As the article had been
published without any further steps being taken to take care not to publish
inaccurate information, there was a breach of Clause 1(i). Where the focus of
the article was the coach journey, failing to accurately report the purpose of
the journey was significant and required correction under Clause 1(ii).
15. The
article had reported that the passengers were being transferred to a hotel in
Tenby in Pembrokeshire. It had taken steps to verify this information by
contacting the hotel the passengers were originally booked to stay at in
Porthcawl, and the hotel they were referred to in Pembrokeshire. At the time of
publication, the information was accurate, and there was no failure to take
care not to publish inaccurate information under Clause 1(i). However, the
situation since the publication of the article had changed, with the coach
returning without going to Pembrokeshire. As the central theme of the article
was the coach continuing its trip and the anger caused by this decision, where
the coach did turn back, this was a significant inaccuracy and must now be
corrected under Clause 1(ii).
16. The
offered correction made clear that the coach did not carry on to Pembrokeshire,
and instead returned to Warrington. It also made clear that the coach had not
been intended to visit the Elvis Festival. The publication had offered to
publish the correction in as a footnote to the article. The correction was
offered quickly after the change to the situation and was therefore considered
to be both duly prompt and prominent. There was no further breach of Clause
1(ii) on this point.
17.
Where Bolton was subject to restrictions as a result of Covid-19, which
prevented people from socialising with those from other households and where
all pubs and restaurants were closed, it was not significantly misleading to
report that Bolton was subject to a “local lockdown”. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
Conclusions
18. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
19.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, 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 terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
20. The
Committee considered that the publication did not take the necessary care when
reporting the coach’s route. The Committee considered that the appropriate
remedy was the publication of a correction to put the correct position on
record. A correction was considered to be sufficient, as the claim was not the
central point of the article, which related to the origin of the passengers.
21. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. This correction
should be added to the article and
appear as a standalone correction in the online corrections and clarifications
column. This wording should only include information required to correct the
inaccuracy: that the article had claimed that the coach was a coachload of
people from Bolton, that the coach had come from Bolton, that the purpose had
been to travel for the Elvis Festival and that it had gone on to Pembrokeshire.
The wording should also 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. 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 which explains the amendments that have been made.
22.
Wording of correction: Our article “Anger as coachload of people from Bolton
heads to Tenby after being forced to leave Porthcawl”, published on 22
September 2020 reported that a coachload of people from Bolton had travelled
'all the way from Bolton' to Porthcawl, and were heading to Pembrokeshire. We
would like to make clear that the coach did not stop at, or transit through,
Bolton and that there was only one person from the town and two from the Bolton
borough on the coach with the rest from across the north west. In addition, we
have since been informed that the coach company, after the publication of the
article, subsequently sent the coach back to Warrington. This correction has
been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 25/09/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/12/2020
Back to ruling listing