Resolution Statement – 29766-20 Cohen v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Mark Cohen complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “'Bonkers' NHS advert that shows 'Santa being
struck down by coronavirus' before medics save him is condemned by critics for
'upsetting children' and 'looking for reasons to make this Christmas worse'”,
published on 12 December 2020.
2. The online article reported on the reaction to a
Christmas advert, titled The Gift. The
headline was followed by a series of bullet points that summarised what the
“NHS charity Christmas advert" showed and the subsequent reaction to its
broadcast. The article went on to detail these concerns, noting that the advert
was part of a campaign by the NHS Charities Together which “intended to
celebrate NHS staff and volunteers who fought tirelessly on the coronavirus
frontlines during the pandemic.” The
article included the comments made by charity on social media and its Chief
Executive, Ellie Norton.
3. The complainant said the headline of the article gave the
misleading impression that the advert was funded by the NHS, rather than by the
organisation NHS Charities Together. The complainant expressed concern that
readers would be misled by the headline, highlighting that one of publication’s
own columnist had shared the article on social media with the caption: “Why is
the NHS wasting money on tripe like this?”.
4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the headline was supported by and
clarified by the text of the article, including the titles and captions of
photographs, which made clear that the advert was funded by NHS Charities
Together. In any event, the publication suggested that the difference was
insignificant, given the aims of the charity and that the advert was for and
about the NHS.
5. Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint, the
newspaper offered to amend the text of online article, including the first
bullet point to read “Old bearded man lies unconscious in the NHS
Charities-funded Christmas advert” as well as adding a full corporate
description of the charity. The
complainant said this proposed action was insufficient to resolving his
complaint.
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.
Mediated Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
7. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to
further amend the online article, adding “Charities” to the headline, and
publishing the following, in the form of a clarification footnote:
“MailOnline notes that the NHS Christmas advert was paid for
and placed by NHS Charities Together”
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
9. 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: 12/12/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/02/2021
Back to ruling listing