01672-25 Fisher v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Bob Fisher complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Six out of seven UK kids live in poverty - interactive map shows how your area fares”, published on 10 April 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) detailing the number of children living in poverty across the country in the year ending March 2024. The opening paragraph of the article reported that “[s]ix out of every seven children in the UK's most deprived neighbourhoods are living in poverty, worrying new government data has revealed.” The article went on to report that, “[i]n the Newport ward of Middlesbrough, six out of every seven children - that’s 85% of them - are living below the breadline. That’s the highest proportion of any electoral ward in the UK. The Manningham area of Bradford has the next highest proportion, with nearly three quarters (72%) of children living in poverty.” The article included an “interactive map” in which readers could input their postcode and see the percentage of children living in poverty in their area in 2023/24. The search results compared this percentage to the UK as a whole and included an infographic which displayed the percentage on a scale in relation to the “lowest” and “highest”.

3. The complainant said that the headline of the article was inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 as it was not supported by the text of the article. He said that there was only one electoral ward within the town of Middlesbrough where “six out of seven” children live in poverty”. The complainant said the headline claim inaccurately suggested that six of out seven children in the UK as a whole are living in poverty.

4. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1. It said the headline should not be read in isolation and should be read in the context of the full article. The publication said that the body of the article provided further clarification and context to support the headline claim – which it stated was “correct as this was the fraction of children ‘living below the breadline’, who live in the Newport ward of Middlesbrough in the UK”. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication provided a copy of the DWP data it relied on as the basis of its article. This data showed that, in the Newport ward of Middlesborough, the percentage of children living in poverty was 85% - and the ward with the next highest rate of child poverty had 72% of children living in poverty.

5. The publication said the 6 out of 7 figure was calculated using the ward-level figures and the figures demonstrated that a proportion of children in the UK did live in poverty.

Relevant Clause 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

6. The Committee was clear that the terms of Clause 1 (i) of the Code are explicit in their requirement that headline statements should be supported by the text of the article. The Committee emphasised that this should not be interpreted to mean that the body of the article can be relied upon to correct an actively misleading impression given by a headline.

7. The headline stated as fact that “six out of seven UK kids live in poverty” - which the Committee concluded gave the strong impression that, in the UK as a whole, the child poverty rate was “six out of seven”. However, the DWP data used as the basis for its article, showed that the percentage of children living in poverty was below 73% for all electoral wards within the UK, bar one. Therefore, the headline claim was inaccurate. This was compounded by the opening sentence of the article, which referred to “neighbourhoods” in the plural, reiterating the inaccurate headline by stating that the data related to multiple areas – instead of just a single electoral ward. While the article did subsequently state that 85% of children the Newport ward in Middlesbrough, specifically, live in poverty, this was not sufficient to rectify the misleading impression already given or to clarify to readers that the headline claim related only to a single ward rather than the UK overall. In such circumstances, the Committee considered the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading or distorted information. Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

8. The Committee considered the claim within the headline had the potential to mislead readers on a matter of public importance – the number of children living in poverty within the UK. In addition to this, headlines are inherently prominent: they open articles, which are read as a result of them, and will often appear on an online publication’s homepage. Given the greater prominence and weight afforded to headlines, misleading information within headlines will generally be significant. As such, the headline was significantly inaccurate, and a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

9. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and (ii).

Remedial action required

10. Having upheld the complaint, 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 nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

11. The Committee considered that the headline was significantly inaccurate, as it said that “six out of seven UK kids live in poverty”. It did note, however, that the text of the article made clear that this statistic related specifically to “the Newport ward of Middlesbrough”, in which 85% of children were “living below the breadline”. The Committee was mindful that the thrust of the article focused on the number of children living in poverty within the UK but acknowledged the text of the article set out the true position. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge it was inaccurate to report that “six out of seven UK kids live in poverty”. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the “six out of seven” statistic related only to children residing in the electoral ward of Newport in Middlesbrough rather than to the UK overall, and that the percentage of children living in poverty in the other electoral wards in the UK was below 73%.

12. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

13. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article – therefore giving it greater prominence and weight - the correction should appear as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, it should appear directly below the headline on the article itself.

14. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 11/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/07/2025