05679-24 Coulson v birminghammail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Jan Coulson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that birminghammail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “State pensioners issued NEW update over free bus passes being 'scrapped' by Labour”, published on 18 September 2024, and an article headlined “State pensioners issued NEW update over Labour 'scrapping' Triple Lock”, published on 23 September 2024.

2. The first article appeared under the sub-headline: “Shadow transport secretary Helen Whately has written to Labour transport secretary Louise Haigh amid speculation free bus passes could be next”. It opened by reporting:

“State pensioners who've lost the £300 Winter Fuel Payment have been given a new update over the prospect of free bus passes being canned by the new Labour Party government too. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has shaken up Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) eligibility for the £300 Winter Fuel Allowance.

Now, shadow transport secretary Helen Whately has written to Labour transport secretary Louise Haigh amid speculation free bus passes could be next. But a spokesman for Labour has now told BirminghamLive that the ruling party has “no plans to withdraw” the scheme.

3. Following this, it reported: “In her letter to Ms Haigh, Ms Whately said: “[…] For many older people they represent their last remaining ticket to independence, to amenities and to their communities. Please will you confirm to me and to them as soon as possible that these bus passes won't be scrapped.”

4. The second article appeared under the sub-headline: “Chancellor has addressed the prospect of changing the Triple Lock ahead of the conference in the North West of England this week”. It went on to report:

Rachel Reeves has issued an update over potentially scrapping the Triple Lock. The Labour Party Chancellor has addressed the prospect of changing the Triple Lock ahead of the conference in the North West of England this week.

Ms Reeves said: "But, also, we're committed to keeping the triple lock, not just for one year, but for the whole of this parliament. Already, the triple lock means that the pension this year is worth £900 more than a year ago, I'll announce at the Budget probably another increase of around £460 next April, and over the course of this parliament, the new state pension is likely to rise by £1,700.

5. The complainant said that the articles breached Clause 1 because the headlines and first paragraphs reported that free bus passes, and the Triple Lock respectively, would be scrapped, whereas the substance of the text revealed this was not the case.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated that both headlines referred to “scrapping”, or “scrapped”, in inverted commas – thus distinguishing between comment, conjecture and fact. It also said that headlines should not be read in isolation, but rather alongside the full article. It said the reference to 'scrapping' in the headlines was supported in both articles – the subheadings made clear that the update is in relation to "amid speculation" and "the prospect" of free bus passes, and the Triple Lock, being scrapped. It said the opening paragraphs also made this clear.

7. In any event, the publication added, should the headlines be read in isolation, they did not refer to bus passes, or the Triple Lock, being scrapped as fact.

8. In response, the complainant said the use of inverted commas did not distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact – she said that it is more likely to be read by members of the public as a form of emphasis or to imply an authoritative source.

9. The complainant also said that the publication’s argument that headlines should be read alongside the article was “no defence”. Neither headline made clear that the update is about previous speculation, and that when reading the headlines alone, she said, the update would appear to be about the “scrapping”. She also added, overall, the headlines were inflammatory – in breach of Clause 1.

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

10. The Committee began with the first article: “State pensioners issued NEW update over free bus passes being 'scrapped' by Labour”. The publication had said that the headline was referring to an “update” on speculation bus passes would be scrapped, and that the article and headline - when read together – made this clear.

11. Articles should be read as a whole – neither the headline, nor the text, should be considered in complete isolation from the other, and the Committee recognised that the article under complaint did make clear the position, namely that there had been speculation that the government might scrap bus passes but that this was not government policy.

12. However, the question for the Committee was not whether the article was correct, given that an accurate article cannot be relied upon to support an inaccurate headline. The question was whether the headline, in and of itself, was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.

13. In considering this, the Committee was mindful of several factors. Firstly, it noted that the word “scrapped” appeared in the headline in inverted commas. The use of inverted commas is common journalistic practice and – provided the Code is not breached – they can be used in numerous ways: for example, they can indicate that something is a direct quotation; that a phrase is the publication’s summary or characterisation of a certain topic; or to denote the use of a colloquialism.

14. The Committee took into account the entirety of the headline, noting the emphasis that the article was a “NEW update” and that inverted commas were placed only around the word “scrapped”. The Committee acknowledged the publication’s position that the headline was not reporting an update on the scrapping of bus passes, but rather that it was providing an update on the speculation that bus passes might be scrapped. However, the Committee was of the view that the use of inverted commas in the manner in which they were used in the headline was insufficient to make this clear. When taking the headline as a whole, it suggested that the article was providing an update on a decision that had been taken by the government to ‘scrap’ or abolish bus passes; this was misleading as it did not reflect the true position, which was made clear only in the text of the article.

15. In light of this, the article – which reported on speculation that Labour may get rid of free bus passes for pensioners and the party’s response to this speculation – did not support the headline. Rather, it served to correct the headline, which was actively misleading. The publication of such a headline amounted to a failure to take care. This was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. Given the misleading information was reported in the headline, and suggested that free bus passes would be scrapped by the government, this was inherently significant, and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). A correction had not been offered, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

17. The Committee then turned to the second article, the headline of which reported: “State pensioners issued NEW update over Labour 'scrapping' Triple Lock”. The publication again said that the headline was referring to an “update” provided in the article on the prospect of government action, in this case the “scrapping" of the Triple Lock.

18. As with the first article under complaint and for similar reasons, the Committee considered that the headline reported that the article was providing an update on a decision which had been taken by the government on “scrapping [the] Triple Lock” – rather than reporting that there was an update in regard to the prospect that the Triple Lock might be abolished. The Committee noted that the article included a statement from the Chancellor which made clear that the government is “committed to keeping the triple lock, not just for one year, but for the whole of this parliament”. The article, therefore, corrected the misleading information in the headline, rather than supporting it. This was a failure to take care, in breach of Clause 1(i). Where the misleading information was reported in the headline, and suggested that Labour were “scrapping” the Triple Lock, this was significant, and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). A correction had not been offered, and so there was a further breach of Clause 1(ii).

Conclusions

19. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial action required

20. 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.

21. The Committee considered that the headlines of both articles were misleading, and unsupported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. It did recognise, however, that both articles reported the correct position – while the headlines were misleading, the correct position was on record in the articles. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that two corrections, one per article, was the appropriate remedy. The corrections should acknowledge that the headlines were misleading, and unsupported by the text that followed. They should also restate the correct position.

22. The Committee then considered the placement of the corrections. As the misleading information appeared in the headlines, the corrections should appear as standalone corrections in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column and links should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online articles without amendment, corrections should be added to the articles and published beneath the headlines. If the articles are amended, the corrections should be published as a footnotes.

23. The wording of the corrections should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that they have been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 24/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/01/2025