Today The Daily Telegraph published a correction of false information in an article demonizing
e-cigarettes, following review by Britain's Independent Press Standards Organisation (here). The correction was published on page 4 of the newspaper (left) and online.
The original story, “Four in 10 teenage e-cigarette
users would not have smoked, warn health experts,” was authored by science
editor Sarah Knapton on March 31 (here).
The article’s subtitle and the lead
sentence repeated the theme that “teenagers who would never have smoked are now
using e-cigarettes” (my emphasis).
The study, published in BMC Public Health (here), made no such
claim. In an online comment I noted,
“First, the survey did not ask teenagers if they are ‘now using’ e-cigarettes;
it asked them ‘have you *ever* tried or purchased e-cigarettes.’ Second, the survey did not identify ‘teenagers
who would never have started smoking.’ Rather,
it identified teenagers who had not smoked at the time of the survey and those
who had smoked but not liked it.”
I filed a formal complaint with the IPSO. On April 2, the agency replied that my
complaint “falls within our remit and discloses a possible breach of the
Editors’ Code of Practice” and that it was being sent to The Telegraph in order
to “to provide it with the opportunity swiftly to resolve the matter to your
satisfaction, directly, if possible.”
The paper’s Head of Editorial Compliance, Jess McAree, emailed
me on April 13, saying, “…there is nothing inaccurate or misleading about the
article that requires amendment.”
I advised the IPSO that my complaint was not resolved:
“The article’s author, editor Sarah Knapton, could have
described the study findings accurately. In her article teens who had ever
tried or purchased e-cigarettes in the past were inappropriately
transformed into using e-cigarettes NOW…In addition, Knapton
falsely converted teenagers who had never smoked in the past or who had tried
it but didn’t like it into teens who would have NEVER started to smoke.
“These items are not just marginally inaccurate summaries,
and they do not involve methodological complexities; they represent misuse of
simple English words to conflate ever e-cig triers to current users and to
redefine teens who hadn’t started to smoke as those who would never smoke. The
article remains inaccurate and misleading, and it still requires amendment.
“I request that IPSO proceed with further consideration of
my complaint.”
By May 11, my complaint was scheduled for a full committee
hearing. In desperation, The Telegraph’s McAree sent the IPSO a
description of the study’s technical findings, which I pointed out was “completely
irrelevant to my complaint.”
Telegraph editors made
a last-ditch, insufficient change on May 19, removing the phrase “would not
have smoked” from the headline, but they made no substantial changes in the
subhead or article (second photo).
Finally, on June 25, the IPSO notified me of their finding that
The Telegraph article was misleading in
redefining teens who hadn’t started to smoke as those who would never
smoke. IPSO required the paper to take
remedial action: “The article was on page 12 of the newspaper, and correction
should be published on this page, or further forward in the newspaper. The correction on the online article should
make clear that the article had since been amended, and should be published at
the foot of the online article.” The
IPSO published my complaint and its decision here.
The IPSO should have acknowledged that The Telegraph mislabeled teens who had ever tried or purchased
e-cigarettes in the past as users of e-cigarettes NOW. However, this part of my petition was not
upheld. I am disappointed that the IPSO
allowed the newspaper to transform ever use of e-cigarettes into current
use. Additionally, the IPSO inaccurately
reported my complaint by not including the word “now,” which The Telegraph used
in describing e-cig use in its subhead, first paragraph and fourth
paragraph.
The IPSO exists “to promote and uphold the highest
professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the
public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice
has been breached.” The organization
maintains high standards of journalism, and it has a high bar for complaints. Of the 188 complaints reviewed by the committee
since its establishment in 2014, only 41 (22%) have been confirmed. Fourteen complaints against The Telegraph have been reviewed; mine
is the third to be upheld.
The IPSO decision sends a message to the British news media:
Get your facts straight when reporting about e-cigarettes. It’s a shame that there is no equivalent
media watchdog in the U.S.
1 comment:
That all sounds like hard work, Brad :) - thanks for sticking to it.
There is another issue: their mode of language use infers that people using ecigs are smoking, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion they did this deliberately.
All in all, a calculated attack on THR. It's hard to work out why they would try to denigrate smoking cessation, but the media here are strongly affected by a need to placate large-scale advertisers; and when that issue isn't operating, the hardline socialists among the journalists tend to do the bidding of the far left wing of the Labour party, who are officially anti-THR. That's harder to explain...
Post a Comment