Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 28470-20 Alfa Travel v South Wales Echo
Summary
of Complaint
1. Alfa
Travel complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that South
Wales Echo breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Anger as Bolton tourists head west after Porthcawl lockout”,
published on 23 September 2020.
2. The
article reported on a holiday tour coach, which it described as a “coachload of
holidaymakers from Bolton and the north-west of England” that had “come all the
way from Bolton and the north-west of England”. 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
holidaymakers from Bolton and the north-west of England” as only one passenger
had been from the city of Bolton, and a further two from the wider borough of
Bolton. Prior to the publication of the article, the complainant had sent the
publication a statement which stated that “Contrary to media reports, this
coach was not solely comprised of holidaymakers travelling from Bolton, but
from customers across the North West region which spans from Cumbria to Stoke
on Trent.”
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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”.
9. The
publication offered to publish the following as a correction on page 2 in its
corrections and clarifications column:
Our article
[HEADLINE; DATE] reported that a coachload of people had travelled 'all the way
from Bolton' to Porthcawl, and were heading to Pembrokeshire. This was based on
information available at the time. We have since been informed 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
10. 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.
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).
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. The
offered correction made clear that the coach did not carry on to Pembrokeshire,
and instead returned to Warrington. The publication had offered to publish the
correction in the print version of the paper, on the page two corrections and
clarifications column. 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.
14. The
complainant had accepted that one passenger was from the city of Bolton and a
further two were from the region. On this basis, it was not misleading to
report that it was a “coachload of holidaymakers from Bolton and the north-west
of England”. 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
15. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
16.
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.
17. 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.
18. The
Committee then considered the placement of the correction. It should appear in
the established print corrections and clarifications column. It should state
that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. The full wording and position should be agreed with
IPSO in advance.
19.
Wording of the correction as follows: Our article “Anger as Bolton tourists
head west after Porthcawl lockout”, published on 23 September 2020 reported
that a coachload of people 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. 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