05786-24 Proctor v belfastlive.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Anne Proctor complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that belfastlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Strangford College principal issues statement to parents after school bus overturns”, published on 7 October 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – opened by reporting that a “school principal in Co Down has issued a statement to parents after a bus with over 40 passengers onboard overturned”. Subsequently, the article reported:

“In an updated statement, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service [NIAS] said this evening: ‘Following a Road Traffic Incident this afternoon in the Carrowdore area, the Northern Ireland Ambulance declared a Major Incident, based on the number of resources required to attend the incident.

"’Initial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus. This figure has been revised to 43 and a driver.’”

3. The article included a photograph of the bus in question – it showed the bus on its side, surrounded by emergency service workers and vehicles. The photograph was captioned: “General view of the scene after a double-decker school bus carrying more than 70 passengers has crashed in county Down”.

4. The article was published at 6.07pm. At 6.24pm, the complainant contacted the newspaper. Her email read as follows:

“Your report on this was appalling!

Your headline stated 70 passengers.

The detail of your report then said 46 passengers & further on said 47.

Absolutely disgraceful reporting of a serious crash involving many families, made so much more hard to bear by your outrageous overestimation of numbers & repeatedly inconsistent in fact.”

5. The publication replied on the same date. In its response, the publication said:

“The detail which stated 70 passengers were on board initially was taken from a statement issued by the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, as you can see from the screenshot attached, as the story first broke this evening”.

As further information became available, again from official sources such as the PSNI and the NIAS, we updated our story to reflect the correct number of passengers involved”.

6. The complainant responded to the newspaper, again on the same date. Her email read as follows, and included a screenshot of the photograph and caption, as described above:

“NIAS report said UP TO 70.

Your report STILL says MORE than 70.”

7. In response, at 10.04am on 8 October, the publication stated that the photograph caption had been created by an external photography agency and that, in light of the complainant’s concerns, it would amend the caption. It was amended to read: “General view of the scene after a double-decker school bus crashed in county Down”. The newspaper also added the following footnote correction to the article:

“In the original version of this article a photograph caption indicated that there were more than 70 passengers on the bus. In fact, the figure was 43 plus the driver. We are happy to correct the position.”

8. Following this, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said that the article breached Clause 1 as it had overestimated the number of possible casualties in the accident. She said the actual number was 43 passengers – as stated by the NIAS and reported in the article – and that she did not believe the bus was capable of carrying more than 70 passengers.

9. She also complained that the newspaper had inaccurately reported information from NIAS, and had changed “up to 70” – from an NIAS statement - to “more than 70”. The complainant said that the reporting had caused trauma, pain and worry to the local community.

10. The complainant also said that the body of the article referred to 46 passengers and 47 passengers in two different parts, and was inconsistent.

11. On 10 October, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. The newspaper said that the text of the article had never reported that there were either “46” or “47” passengers.

12. In response, on 21 October, the complainant supplied a screenshot taken from the newspaper’s website. The screenshot showed the same photograph of the bus, and was captioned: “Co Down school issues statement after bus with 46 passengers onboard crashes”.

13. The complainant also complained about the following line in the article already under complaint: “Initial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus. This figure has been revised to 43 and a driver”. She questioned why the newspaper reported “initial reports were approximately 70” as, she said, there were never 70 passengers on the bus.

14. Additionally, the complainant objected to the correction published by the newspaper. She objected to the term “happy to correct”, given the subject nature of the complaint - she also said it failed to accept responsibility for the inaccuracy. The complainant also said the correction was not duly prominent, as it had been “incorporated into the text”, and did not appear under a separate heading.

15. The complainant maintained that the newspaper had published another article which included the “46” and “47” figures. She said this was no longer online, and had been removed – she believed, after her complaint.

16. On 29 October, the publication made further amendments to the article. It amended the opening paragraph to read: “A school principal in Co Down has issued a statement to parents after a bus with more than 70 passengers onboard overturned”. It also amended the footnote correction to read as follows:

“In the original version of this article a photograph caption indicated that there were more than 70 passengers on the bus, which was based on initial reports. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service later advised that this figure has been revised to 43 and a driver. As of 25th October, the Education Authority has confirmed that the incident involved 76 pupils. The article has been updated accordingly.”

17. On 31 October, IPSO shared the complainant’s correspondence referenced above, which included the screenshot that referenced “46 passengers onboard”. In response, on 5 November, the publication stated that the screenshot showed a “social headline” for the article already under complaint, and that there was no separate article. This headline had appeared on its social media platforms X and Facebook, as well as on the “Read more” section at the bottom of other articles on its website.

18. On the same day, the publication published a standalone correction on its website, under the headline: “Strangford College bus incident - A correction”. The correction read as follows:

“Our article on 7 October headlined ‘Strangford College principal issues statement to parents after school bus overturns’ appeared under the following headline on social media: ‘Co Down school issues statement after bus with 46 passengers onboard crashes’.

The figure of 46 was incorrect. In fact, on 25th October, the Education Authority confirmed that the incident involved 76 pupils. We would like to set the record straight.”

19. The publication also published posts on both its Facebook and X accounts, linking to this correction. The posts read: “Strangford College bus incident - A correction”.

20. On 19 November, IPSO began its investigation into the complaint. The publication did not accept that the article had breached the Code. Regarding the image caption, it accepted that, based on the information available at the time of publication, it had inaccurately referred to “more than 70” passengers. It reiterated that the caption had been provided by an external agency, but accepted that it should have been checked at the time. However, it considered the inaccuracy had been corrected in line with its requirements under Clause 1 (ii) – it was corrected promptly and, given the inaccuracy had appeared in an image caption, and not the main headline, a footnote correction was duly prominent.

21. The publication also did not accept that the article was inaccurate to say that “[i]nitial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus. This figure has been revised to 43 and a driver”. It supplied a statement from the NIAS, dated 5.55pm on 7 October, which read as follows:

“Following a Road Traffic Incident this afternoon in the Carrowdore area, the Northern Ireland Ambulance declared a Major Incident, based on the number of resources required to attend the incident.

Initial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus. This figure has been revised to 43 and a driver.”

22. The publication noted that the Education Authority had published a further statement on the incident, on 25 October, which had been reflected in an updated version of the article. It supplied IPSO with this statement, which read: “The incident, which involved 76 pupils from Strangford Integrated College and the driver, has been a distressing experience for all those affected”.

23. The publication also did not accept a breach of the Code in regard to the social media headlines. The publication said that, once it was established that the social media headline also included an inaccurate figure, it had published the standalone correction. It said this inaccuracy arose from “human error”. However, it said it would be happy to add an apology to both corrections.

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

24. The Committee acknowledged that the article was reporting on an ongoing and developing incident, and that – given the nature of the story – there was conflicting information regarding how many people were involved in the crash. In its view, it was understandable that this may have caused difficulties for the newspaper in establishing the correct position, and it took this into account in making its assessment of the complainant’s concerns.

25. The complainant had said that an initial statement from the NIAS referred to “up to 70” passengers. The publication had subsequently supplied a statement from the NIAS, released at 5.55pm on the day of publication and roughly 15 minutes before the article had been published. This statement said that: “Initial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus. This figure has been revised to 43 and a driver”. On 25 October, the Education Authority had released another statement – this made clear that the crash involved “76 pupils”.

26. In the Committee’s view, it was clear that the photograph caption – which said there were “more than 70” passengers on the bus at the time of the crash – did not accurately reflect the information released by the NIAS. This was the case because, as the article made clear, by 5.55pm the NIAS’s position was that the number of people involved “ha[d] been revised to 43 and a driver”. The publication had published a caption which it accepted it had not checked prior to the article’s publication, and which did not tally with the remainder of the article.

27. However, as confirmed by the statement subsequently published by the Education Authority, the disputed line was not, ultimately, inaccurate: There had been 76 passengers on the bus, and therefore the reference to “more than 70 passengers” was not inaccurate. In light of this, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point, although the Committee noted that this was not due to any steps the publication had taken to ensure that its coverage was accurate. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the steps the publication had taken to resolve the complaint.

28. The complainant has also expressed concerns that the article reported: “Initial reports indicated that approximately 70 people were on board the bus”. She had questioned why the newspaper was referring to initial reports of approximately 70 passengers, as, she said, there was never this number of people on the bus.

29. The Committee noted that this was clearly a statement provided by the NIAS, rather than a statement of fact on the part of the publication – it was prefaced as such in the article: “In an updated statement, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service said this evening”. The Committee also noted that the statement in question had been supplied by the publication during the course of IPSO’s investigation, and tallied with what the article reported. As the publication had accurately reported the statement, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. The Committee then turned to the social media posts. These read: “Co Down school issues statement after bus with 46 passengers onboard crashes”. The publication had said they appeared on its website as part of a “Read more” section, and on Facebook and X.

31. The Committee considered that the social media posts were inaccurate. The social media posts referenced “46” passengers –the article they then linked to referred to the NIAS’s statement that “43” passengers had been on the bus, as well as the disputed reference to “more than 70” passengers. The newspaper had also accepted that they were inaccurate, and had been published as a result of “human error”.

32. In the Committee’s view, given the social media posts did not tally with the information subsequently reported in this article provided by the NIAS, this amounted to a breach of Clause 1 (i). This was the case as the failure to take care had led to the publication of inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

33. The inaccurate social media posts related to the number of passengers involved in a school bus crash, which the Committee considered to be significant. Such a story would be of extreme importance to the local community, and the Committee considered that it was important to ensure that the social media posts accurately reported on the number of individuals involved in a serious and ongoing incident. The inaccuracy therefore required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

34. The newspaper had published a standalone correction on its website, as well as links to this on its Facebook and X pages. These corrections had been published five days after the newspaper had been made aware of the inaccuracy. The Committee considered that a gap of five days between being made aware of the inaccuracy – which had only been raised with the publication during IPSO’s process – and the correction’s publication represented sufficiently prompt action for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of Clause 1 (ii).

35. The Committee noted that the inaccuracy had not appeared as an article itself on the publication’s website; rather, it was the title of a link, that appeared within the “Read more” section of the newspaper’s website. It had also appeared on Facebook and X. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a standalone correction, with separate links to it on each platform, represented due prominence – the social media corrections appeared in substantially the same format as the original posts, whereas a standalone article represented a more prominent correction than the initial inaccurate link, which appeared only at the bottom of certain articles.

36. Finally, the Committee considered that the wording of the correction was sufficient to correct the record. It made clear that the figure of 46 passengers was inaccurate, and put the correct figure on record. In light of these factors, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

37. The Committee acknowledged that there was a dispute between the complainant and publication as to whether a separate article had been published, which included the “46” and “47” figures. The complainant had also complained that the newspaper had published the disputed “more than 70” figure as a headline.

38. The Committee was clear that it could only consider complaints about articles which it has been provided with, and the complainant had not been able to supply a copy of the article in question – the publication had said that this was because no such article existed, and what the complainant had provided, in screenshot format, was a hyperlink to the article under complaint. The screenshot provided of the “more than 70” figure also showed the image caption within the article, as covered above, and not a headline. Given this, the Committee was satisfied that any inaccuracies identified by the complainant had been corrected.

Conclusions

39. The complaint was partly upheld.

Remedial action required

40. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 08/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/03/2025