Resolution Statement – 28680-20 Richardson v The Sun
Summary of Complaint
1. Melissa Richardson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Act
now Boris...or we'll give a sod off”, published on 26 October 2020.
2. The article under complaint was an opinion piece,
focusing on the writer’s views regarding lockdown measures across the UK. It
included the following statement from the writer to support their position that
further lockdown measures were not needed: “What’s more, the so-called Second
wave is actually following established pandemic trends and petering out.” The
article also discussed the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, saying that:
“People aren’t stupid. They know most people who died over the summer were very
old, with only months to live.”
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format under the headline “Put Christmas back on the agenda and scrap the
10pm curfew Boris Johnson… or we’ll tell you where you can go”.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. At the time of the article’s publication, she said that the
second wave was not “petering out”; rather, cases were increasing. Moreover, she
said that there was no evidence of “established pandemic trends” which
demonstrated pandemics “petering out” during a second wave, and noted that the
second wave of the Spanish Flu epidemic (1918-1920) was particularly
devastating. While the complainant accepted that 4 out of 5 people who died in
the UK during the first wave of the pandemic were over 70 years old, she did
not accept that it followed that they were “very old” or that they had “only
months to live.” She noted that it was not possible to ascertain the life
expectancy of an amorphous group of people, and that there was not statistical
evidence to demonstrate that “most people who died over the summer” had “only
months to live.”
5. The complainant also said that the article discriminated
against older people in breach of Clause 12.
6. The publication said it did not accept that the Code had
been breached. It first noted that the article was an opinion piece, and
presented as such; readers would not expect that every claim in the article
would be a verified claim of fact. It also considered that the alleged
inaccuracies under dispute were clearly presented as the writer’s opinion, and
distinguished from fact. Notwithstanding these points, the publication said
that all alleged inaccuracies identified by the complainant could be supported
by data. It said that the article was making the point that pandemics often
follow a trend of occurring in two waves and then fading away, and said that
data from King’s College London and the ZOE symptom study supported the
article’s view that the second wave was “petering out”. It also noted that
whether or not a pandemic could be said to be “petering out” was clearly
subjective to a point, and the newspaper said that it was not possible to say
with any certainty whether or not the pandemic was indeed “petering out”. The
publication then noted that the average age of those who died during the first
wave of the pandemic was 80.4, while the average life expectancy in the UK is
81.4. It also noted that many of those who died during the first wave had
co-morbidities, such as Alzheimer’s disease, which shorten the average
lifespan. For these reasons, the publication did not consider that it was
inaccurate to state that “most people who died over the summer were very old,
with only months to live.” It further said that, while it was subjective to an
extent at what age a person can be considered “very old”, where the life
expectancy in the UK is 81.4 and the average age of those who died during the
pandemic was 80.4, it said there was sufficient basis for describing them as
such.
7. The publication said that Clause 12 was not breached, as
the terms of Clause 12 do not mention age, and they do not cover groups or
categories of people. As such, concerns that the article discriminated against
the elderly did not, according to the publication, engage the terms of the
Clause.
8. The complainant said that she did not dispute that the
article was on opinion piece. Nevertheless, she considered that the alleged
inaccuracies that she had identified were presented as claims of fact, and not
as the opinion of the article writer. She noted that the available data at the
time of the article’s publication regarding the second wave of infections was
not conclusive, with some figures showing an increase in infections after the
article’s publication. She went on to note that any decline in cases may be
attributed in part, or entirely, to government interventions rather than
“established pandemic trends”; even if it was accepted that the second wave was
“petering out”, it did not follow that the second wave following “established
pandemic trends” in doing so. She also reiterated that, regardless of the
average life expectancy at birth being 81.4, it was not possible to say with
any certainty that those who died during the summer had “only months to live.”
9. The complainant accepted that the terms of Clause 12 were
not engaged in this instance, and expressed concern that the terms of the
Clause did not cover age-based discrimination.
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.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability
must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Mediated Outcome
10. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
11. The newspaper offered to print the following correction
in its regular Corrections and Clarifications column of the print edition:
A Oct 25 opinion article, "Act now Boris...or we’ll
give a sod off", said the second wave of Covid was 'following established
pandemic trends' and 'petering out'. We wish to clarify that although data from
the ONS and the King's College ZOE Covid surveys suggest that second wave
infections peaked within days of the article's publication date, it is not
clearly established that pandemics invariably peter out following second waves.
The article also gave the writer's opinion that most people who died of Covid
were 'very old, with only months to live'. While the mean age of individuals
who have died due to Covid is 80.4, and average UK life expectancy at birth is
81.4, it is also true that individuals aged 80 have a life expectancy of 89.
12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her 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: 26/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/01/2020
Back to ruling listing