03659-24 Johnston v whitehavennews.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Malcolm Johnston complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that whitehavennews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How widespread English identity is in Copeland”, published on 22 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 covers all of [2023].” The article reported the survey showed “just 43% of people in England said they identified as English.” It said respondents to the survey could “select as many options as they like from British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, or ‘other’.” It went on to state, “in Copeland, 50% of people said they identified as English last year – up from 29% in the year to June 2016, before the Brexit referendum.”

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. You'll see a lot of England flags in June when the Three Lions are competing in the Euros, and then they'll disappear again. 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. Getting behind a shared English identity could help bring people together."

4. It also included a quote from the director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Southampton, who said the findings “should be approached with caution”. Its director said “many people only select one response, despite having ‘multiple identities’”. It also reported the director:

“added the British social attitudes survey suggests there has been an increase in the numbers saying they are equally English and British, but a smaller rise in the numbers saying they are British rather than English.”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

9. 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. He also considered the quote from the director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Southampton had been placed in the article in a way which made it appear to be a direct response to the survey; the complainant said he did not consider the director would have responded in this manner.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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”.

13. The publication did not accept that the inclusion of the quotes from the director of the British Future think tank or the director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Southampton was inaccurate. It provided emails which showed the newspaper had approached both institutions for comment on the article prior to publication and provided them with the dataset the article was based on.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

18. The Committee then considered whether the inclusion of the quotes from the British Future think tank or the director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Southampton represented an inaccuracy. The publication was able to demonstrate it had approached the people who were quoted 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.

19. 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 respondents could select multiple identities. There was no breach on this point.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

21. N/A

Date complaint received: 16/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/11/2024