03655-24 Johnston v oxfordmail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Malcolm Johnston complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that oxfordmail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Number of people identifying as English in Oxford revealed”, published on 21 April 2024.

2. The article reported on the results of a survey, which it referred to as “the latest population survey from the Office for National Statistics, which cover[ed] all of [2023].” It said the survey, showed “just 43 per cent of people in England said they identified as English.” It stated respondents to the survey could “select as many options as they like from British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or ‘other’”. It reported “in Oxford, 22 per cent of people said they identified as English [in 2023] – up from 19 per cent in the year to June 2016, before the Brexit referendum.” It stated, “a decade earlier, 28 per cent of people identified as English, while it was 51 per cent in 2004.” It also reported, “nationally, the number of people identifying as English has broadly fallen over the last decade,” and that “some 52 per cent said they were English in the year to June 2016, while this rose to 54 per cent in 2013. It was as high as 59 per cent in 2004.”

3. The article included quote from the director of the British Future think tank, which works to promote diversity and social inclusion, which read:

“People’s sense of Englishness ebbs and flows. We could do a lot more to celebrate English identity outside of major sporting moments, in an inclusive way – flying the flag with pride and making sure everyone feels invited to the party on St George’s Day.”

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because he disputed the data was from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), but rather was from a service called Nomis. He considered reporting the data was from ONS was misleading as readers may believe it was from the census and Nomis data was too technical for untrained readers to navigate.

5. The complainant disputed the accuracy of figures in the article. He provided a dataset from the ONS – ONS ANPS – which he said contradicted the data in the article.

6. The complainant also said the article had misleadingly omitted context about the statistics. He said at no point was it explained why the number of those who “identify as” English was falling. He said the article omitted to mention the number of people who identified as British nor did it explain that many of those who identify as English may also identify as British. He said this amounted to a scaremongering – a racist “dog-whistle”, which gave credence to extreme far-right race theories.

7. The complainant also disputed that respondents to the survey were able to select multiple identities. He said they were only able to select one.

8. The complainant said he considered the quote from the director of British Future think tank to be misleading as he did not believe that the director was commenting on the statistics, but that his words were lifted from somewhere else to support the article. The complainant noted the same quote had been used in an article published two years previously. He thought the director would not agree with the tenor of the article under complaint.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It disputed it was inaccurate to state the data was from ONS. It said the article was based on the 2023 ONS Annual Population Survey and was available on Nomis and supplied the dataset which the information in the article was based on.

10. The publication did not accept the information omitted from the article rendered it inaccurate. It said the data showed a fall in respondents identifying as English, and it had accurately reported this data. It said the article was published to coincide with St George’s Day as the patron saint of England and was therefore specifically focused on English identity.

11. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report respondents could select multiple identifies. It provided copy of the survey the article was based on to support this assertion, which asked “how would you describe your national identity? Please choose all that apply”.

12. The publication did not accept that the inclusion of the quote from the director of the British Future think tank was inaccurate. It provided emails which showed the newspaper had approached the institutions for comment on the article prior to publication and provided them with the dataset the article was based on.

13. Once provided with the dataset, and consulting separately with the ONS, the complainant accepted that the figures in the article were technically accurate. However, he maintained the presentation of the information, including the omission of context he considered to be important, was misleading. The complainant also accepted respondents were able to select multiple identities.

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

14. By the end of the investigation, it was not in dispute between the two parties that the figures published were accurate. The complainant’s concern was rather about the presentation of the information – that it could scaremonger readers regarding declining English identity. Clause 1 requires publications take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information; it does not relate to other concerns about the presentation of material, such as that it is scaremongering, where there are no specific claims of inaccuracy.

15. The Committee considered whether it was inaccurate to refer to the data as being from ONS. Where Nomis was a service provided by ONS, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate to state the data in the article was from ONS.

16. Where it was not in dispute respondents were able to select multiple identities, there was no inaccuracy on this point.

17. The Committee then considered whether the inclusion of the quote from the British Future think tank represented an inaccuracy. The publication was able to demonstrate it had approached the institution with the data used in the article; there was nothing to suggest the individuals were misled as to the content of the article. There were no inaccuracies identified on this point.

18. The complainant said the articles were inaccurate because they omitted to include: the number of people who identify as British; to explain that many of those who identify as English also identify as British as well; or state there was a fall in those identifying as English without context. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. In this case, omitting information about the numbers of people with different identities did not make the article inaccurate or misleading, where it made clear that it was focused specifically on the rise and fall of people identifying as “English” specifically, and made clear that respondents were able to select multiple options. There was no breach on this point.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A

Date complaint received: 16/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/11/2024