Resolution Statement – 28994-20 Carraway v The Sunday Telegraph

Decision: Resolved - IPSO mediation

Resolution Statement – 28994-20 Carraway v The Sunday Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Cash Carraway complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Leaving the “mumfluencer” world was liberating”, published on 25 October 2020.

2. The article was an interview with a former influencer who had posted content about her life and family. In the interview, she explained her decision to leave influencing, partly because she had received criticism online. The article reported that “In 2018 [the interviewee] found herself embroiled in an online spat with writer and blogger Cash Carraway, who questioned [interviewee]’s entitlement to social housing…”

3. The complainant –the woman named in the article as having allegedly questioned the interviewee’s entitlement to social housing– said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said that she had never questioned the interviewee's entitlement to social housing. She also said that the newspaper should have contacted her for comment prior to publication of the article.

4. The newspaper did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said that the article was an interview and that the point under complaint was the interviewee’s own claim. It provided a copy of a post by a third party in which such third party appeared, in the view of the newspaper, to be addressing criticism made by the complainant – the newspaper said that the original criticism from the complainant was posted on an Instagram story and so was automatically deleted after 24 hours. It also said that the claim did not amount to a significant inaccuracy as it was a passing claim in the context of a long form first-person interview.

5. In response, the complainant said that the newspaper had said in open correspondence with her that it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted her for comment prior to publication of the newspaper. She also said that the 2018 Instagram post was not evidence of the truth of the allegation, and that the complainant was not in control of nor responsible for the activities of third parties. Finally, the complainant said she had deleted her Instagram account in December 2018, two years before the interviewee deleted her own Instagram account.

6. On receipt of the complaint, the newspaper amended the online article to remove the complainant’s name.

Relevant Code Provisions

7.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

8. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence and so IPSO therefore began an investigation into the complaint.

9. During IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper offered to publish the following wording in its print edition:

An article headlined “‘Leaving the “mumfluencer” world was liberating’” (25 Oct) reported that writer Cash Carraway had questioned [name]’s entitlement to social housing. Ms Carraway denies having made such remarks and is a great supporter of social housing for all. We are happy to put her position on the record.

10. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

11. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make any finding as to whether there had been a breach of the Code.

 

Date complaint received: 11/11/2020

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/1/2021

Back to ruling listing