05095-26 Dixon-Fyle v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Meghan-linked charity faces racism allegations”, published on 16 October 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 7, reported that a “children’s charity for which the Duchess of Sussex is a global ambassador has denied allegations of racism and sexism. Meghan, 44, has been involved with World Vision since 2016, the year she met Prince Harry.”

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “Charity represented by Meghan accused of racism and sexism”.

4. The complainant said that the headline was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to refer to World Vision as a “Meghan-linked charity”. She also said that the article inaccurately reported that the Duchess “is a global ambassador” for the charity and “has been involved with World Vision since 2016”. She said the Duchess of Sussex had not been associated with the charity since 2017, and that this had been reported in the UK press. She also said that the Duchess had never been associated with the UK branch of the charity – which was the branch facing an investigation.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information by referring to the UK version of World Vision’s website which - at the time of publication - referred to the Duchess in the following terms: “Find out how Meghan Markle has helped transform lives across the world with her humanitarian charity work with World Vision”. It said that only after its article had already been published had the charity’s website been updated to specify that the Duchess “was a global ambassador for World Vision Canada from 2016-2017”.”

6. It said that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s website had also not specified the nature of her involvement with the charity, and referred to her simply as “World Vision global ambassador”.

7. The publication did not accept that the article was significantly accurate on the points raised by the complainant – it said the charity was branded simply as “World Vision” in both the UK and internationally, and the charity’s structure was that of one global organisation.

8. Nevertheless, it published the following correction in its print Clarifications and Corrections column on October 18 and on its online Corrections and Clarifications page on October 17:

“The Duchess of Sussex no longer represents World Vision as we wrongly said. She was a global ambassador for the charity through its Canada branch in 2016-17. She has never represented or been involved in any capacity with World Vision UK (“Meghan linked charity faces racism allegations, News, Oct 16). We are happy to make this clear.”

9. On October 17, it amended the online sub-headline of the article to read : “The regulator is assessing complaints that the UK arm of World Vision, for which the Duchess of Sussex was an ambassador, is ‘toxic’”. It also amended the text of the article to say that she “was a global ambassador” for the charity. At the same time, it also added the following clarification as a footnote to the online article:

“This article was amended to take account of the following published clarification. The Duchess of Sussex no longer represents World Vision as we wrongly said. She was a global ambassador for the charity through its Canada branch in 2016-17. She has never represented or been involved in any capacity with World Vision UK (“Meghan linked charity faces racism allegations, News, Oct 16). We are happy to make this clear.”

10. The complainant said this was not sufficient to resolve her complaint. She said the online correction was not sufficiently prominent as it was only accessible behind a paywall as a footnote to the article and in a list of corrections and clarifications, and therefore would not be seen by many readers. She also said the headline, which was not behind a paywall, continued to mislead readers as the UK branch of World Vision was not a “Meghan-linked charity”.

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

11. Prior to the article’s publication the Duchess of the Sussex was listed on the World Vision UK website as a celebrity ambassador for the charity. This listing did not make clear that her involvement had been limited to the Canada branch from 2016-27 only. Given that the charity could be expected to be the most authoritative and up-to-date source on its own ambassadors, the Committee considered that the publication – in relying on this information - had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

12. However, it was not in dispute that – at the time of the article’s publication – the Duchess did not represent the charity, and had not done so for some years. In such circumstances, it was inaccurate for the article to report that she was a “global ambassador” for the charity and “has been involved with World Vision since 2016”.

13. In considering whether the inaccuracy was significant, the Committee considered that given the article implied that the Duchess of Sussex had been associated with the UK branch of the charity during a period when it was under investigation for racism and sexism, the inaccuracy was significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii).

14. In considering whether the corrections published were sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii), the Committee noted that both the print and online corrections put the correct position on record - that The Duchess of Sussex no longer represented World Vision, had not done so since 2017, and that she had never represented the UK branch of World Vision.

15. The Committee noted that the online footnote and standalone corrections had been issued within one day of publication, and the print correction had been issued within 2 days of publication. This was therefore sufficiently prompt under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

16. The print correction had been published in the newspaper’s Corrections and Clarifications column, where readers could expect to find corrections. The online corrections had appeared as a footnote to the online article and in its online clarifications and corrections column.

17. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the corrections were not duly prominent as they appeared only behind the publication’s paywall. However, the Committee noted that the inaccuracy itself had appeared behind a paywall, and that Editors’ Code of Practice does not require publications to remove paywalls from articles which have been corrected. In light of this, and considering the inaccuracy had appeared in the text only, the Committee was satisfied that all corrections were duly prominent. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

18. The Committee considered whether the headlines breached Clause 1 by reporting that the Duchess was “linked” to the charity, and “represented” it, The Committee considered that where it was not in dispute that the Duchess had at one time been an ambassador for World Vision, it was not inaccurate to describe the charity as “Meghan-linked” or “represented by Meghan”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

20. The published correction clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence. There was no further action required.

Date complaint received: 16/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/04/2026