05351-24 Various v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. The Independent Press Standards Organisation received various complaints that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Knifed at random / Leicester Square stab victims were 'attacked by stranger': Police believe mother, 34, and daughter, 11, didn't know knifeman who set upon them in broad daylight before hero security guard leapt to their rescue”, published on 12 August 2024.

2. The article reported on a stabbing in Leicester Square. The article was displayed on the mobile version of the homepage of the publication’s website under the headline “Knifed ‘at random’”. It had a composite image above the headline, made up of three different photographs. The largest photograph was closely cropped and showed the face of a man. One of the other smaller photographs showed two police officers leading a person away; the faces of the police offices were not visible, and the face of the third person was pixelated. Beneath the three images, running across the width of the page was the text: “Leicester Square ‘knifeman’ who stabbed mother and daughter, 11, did not know them, police believed”. No other text relating to the story appeared on the homepage.

3. The article reported: “A shop security guard […] was one of those who tried to save the schoolgirl as she was being attacked today”. The article included a video interview with the security guard where he described the incident. It also included a screenshot from the video with the caption: “The guard gave his name as [name of security guard], 29, (pictured) and works at TWG Tea shop in the square”.

4. Less than two hours after the article’s publication, the image of the man on the homepage was amended to include a block of text which read, “HERO SECURITY GUARD”.

5. The complainants said that the image of the man as it appeared on the homepage as described in paragraph 2 above, breached Clause 1. They said that the way the page was set out created the misleading impression that the man who appeared in the image was the person arrested for the attack. Some complainants believed that this had been done deliberately.

6. The publication did not accept that the composite image breached Clause 1. The newspaper said the image of the man was first included as a small inset photograph in a large composite image, together with the caption “HERO SECURITY GUARD”. As the story developed, most notably following the interview given by the security guard to the press, the image of the man was enlarged for editorial emphasis and during this process the caption was removed.

7. The publication said that while some complainants believed the image had been deliberately enlarged to mislead readers into thinking that the man pictured had been arrested for the attack, the original caption had clearly identified him as the security guard, disproving these claims. It did not accept that the later composite image was misleading, as it did not state or imply that the person arrested was featured in the image in issue. It said the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the composite image, was that the “knifeman” was the figure in the photograph who was surrounded by police and whose face was pixelated. It said a reasonable reader would not believe that if the face of a person was pixelated in one image which accompanied the story, a larger, unpixellated image of the same person would also be published next to that image. It said the image of the man was clearly a screengrab from the interview given by the security guard to which the article referred, and if a reader were to read the full article it would be obvious that the man pictured was the security guard. It added that the composite image which was the subject of the complaints was only live for an hour before the block text identifying the man as the security guard was added.

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

8. The image of the man appeared on the home page immediately above text which said, “Knifed ‘at random’ Leicester Square ‘knifeman’ who stabbed mother and daughter, 11, did not know them, police believe.” The connection between the man pictured and the story was not explained on the page, either in the image or the caption which appeared below it. There was no reference to the interview which the security guard had given to the press nor to the fact that he had intervened in the incident.

9. The Committee did not accept the publication’s position that it was clear from the composite image that the man arrested for the attack was the individual who appeared in the smaller image with the police officers. It noted that while on closer examination this image showed an individual being led away by two police officers, this was not immediately apparent given the size of the image and that the faces of all three of the individuals were obscured in the image.

10. The Committee recognised the context in which the composite image appeared: as part of a quickly developing major incident. While the Committee noted the fast-moving nature of developing news stories, it wished to be clear that it is important that, during serious, breaking news stories, readers can rely on published reports – taking care over the accuracy of published information becomes a matter of greater weight during high-profile incidents. Taking all the circumstances into account, together with the prominence of the image of the man which was published alongside text which read “Leicester Square ‘knifeman’”, the Committee found that the composite image gave the misleading impression that the man pictured was the “Leicester Square ‘knifeman’” who was referenced in the text which accompanied the image. While the article to which readers could click through went on to identity the security guard and his relationship to events, this was not sufficient to rectify the misleading impression given by the homepage. The publication was not able to demonstrate it had taken care over the presentation of the composite image. As such, the Committee considered it had failed to take care over the accuracy of the homepage and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

11. Where the composite image gave a misleading impression as to the connection between the man pictured and a serious and deadly attack, it was significantly misleading and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii). Where no correction was offered, there was a breach of this Clause.

Conclusions

12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

13. 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.

14. The Committee considered the presentation of the homepage was misleading. While the publication had not corrected the information, it had amended it, and acted quickly to do so. The image also only appeared on the mobile version of the publication’s homepage. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge its homepage was misleading as to the attacker’s identity. It should put the correct position on record: the man pictured was not the man who had been arrested and that he had in fact attempted to save one of the women who was attacked.

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

16. As the misleading information appeared on the mobile homepage of the site, 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; the link to the correction should also be clearly visible on the mobile version of the homepage.

17. 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: 21/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/11/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.