Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28851-20 Tomlin v
Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Karen Tomlin complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Cleaned out! Panic-buyers are faced with
EMPTY shelves after Tesco customers wrestle for bargains in chiller aisle and
Costco shoppers queue for 1,300ft before second Covid lockdown”, published on 3
November 2020.
2. The online article reported on an incident that occurred
at a supermarket ahead of the UK’s second national lockdown. The article
contained a 19-second-long video, entitled “Moment Tesco shoppers shove each
other over reduced aisle”, which showed a number of shoppers jostling with each
other over sale items and featured the following in-video caption: “Tesco
wrestlemania”.
3. The complainant said the online article was inaccurate
and misleading in breach of Clause 1. She said the article had featured a
57-second-long video entitled “Desperate shoppers shove each other for Tesco’s
discounted food” that was taken in March 2020. She said the inclusion of this
footage gave the misleading impression that the scene it captured was recent,
rather than, in fact, taking place during the first lockdown. She said the
article failed to make this clear and suggested that it sought to cause panic
amongst readers.
4. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that it had explored the article’s entire history through its internal
content management system and the 19-second video was the only video ever to
have been embedded in the online article. It explained that as a standard
feature across its website, once a featured video concludes, the “video
carousel” then automatically plays related content, interspersed with
advertisements, until the user navigates away from the page. In this instance, after
the conclusion of the embedded video, archive footage matching the content
described by the complainant had followed on the carousel. It said this was a
common practice across online news platforms. Moreover, it said the 19-second
video was footage which had been posted on social media on 2 November and
shared by other publications, and was therefore contemporaneous with the news
report.
5. During IPSOs investigation, the complainant provided a
series of screenshots showing the video entitled “Desperate shoppers shove each
other for Tesco’s discounted food” appearing in the online article. She
maintained that this video had previously been embedded within the article and
suggested that the publication had amended the article and “removed” the video
from their archives as well.
6. The newspaper maintained that the 19-second-long video
had been the only video embedded in the article since its initial publication.
It noted that this was still the case and easily verified through its internal
content management system, re-iterating that the video referred to by the
complainant only appeared as follow-on footage from the embedded video.
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
7. This complaint rested on the video footage used to
illustrate the article: the complainant said that historic footage had been
used, without it being identified as such, while the newspaper maintained that
the embedded video was contemporary. These conflicting positions arose because
the publication and complainant were referring to different footage. The
article had, from its initial publication to the time the complaint was
considered by the Committee, included a single embedded video, which appeared
to be recent footage of shoppers competing for sale items in a supermarket
aisle. However, the publication operated a “video carousel” mechanism across
its platform, which meant that, upon completion of an embedded video, related
content would start to play, and continue until the user navigated away from
the item. It was this subsequent footage to which the complainant referred. The
question for the Committee was whether the presentation of the footage within
the context of the article would mislead readers. In the view of the Committee,
it was clear that the article was reporting on the scene captured in the
embedded contemporary video. The headline of the article referred to “Tesco
customers wrestl[ing] for bargains in chiller aisle”, which matched exactly
both the content of the footage and its caption: “Moment Tesco shoppers shove
each other over reduced aisle”. The Committee noted that upon receipt of the
complaint, IPSOs Executive had downloaded a version of the article with the
caption of the embedded video, at this moment in time, being “Moment Tesco
shoppers shove each other over reduced aisle”. This video was separated from
subsequent footage which played on the carousel, interspersed by a series of
advertisements and no reference to these further videos was made in the course
of the article. In such circumstances,
the Committee was satisfied that it was sufficiently clear that the article was
reporting on the initial embedded video, and readers would not be misled into
understanding that the article was referring to subsequent footage played on
the video carousel. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Date complaint received: 03/11/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2021
Back to ruling listing