A weekly newspaper has been rapped by the press regulator for inaccurately using the term “rapped” in a story.
Partnerships in Care complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Ayrshire Post had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice over an article about one of its clinics.
The complainant runs Ayr Clinic, a secure psychiatric unit, and the Post had reported on an inspection by Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
The Post claimed the clinic had been “rapped on the knuckles” by the inspector, and described the inspection as a “shocker”.
It provided details of the report’s findings, its recommendations for improvement, and its requirement that the clinic ensure that all staff receive regular performance review and appraisal.
The article also explained that the clinic had received “very good” grades in all five inspection areas, and included a statement from the chief inspector, who said that it had been a positive inspection, but that Partnerships in Care must address the inspection’s requirement and recommendations as a matter of priority.
The complainant said that the article gave a misleading and distorted impression of the report’s findings, breaching Clause 1, and that the Post had chosen to “cherry-pick” the few negative aspects of the inspector’s report.
It also said the Post’s use of the term “deranged criminals” to refer to some of the unit’s patients was a breach of Clause 12, as it was a prejudicial and pejorative reference.
In response, the newspaper said that the article had made clear that the clinic had been rated “very good” in the five key inspection areas, but that the inspectors had made a number of recommendations, which were accurately reported.
In these circumstances, the article had not presented the inspection in a misleading manner and the use of the term “rapped” was a matter of editorial discretion.
It further denied that the word “deranged” was prejudicial or pejorative as it was a word that could and has been used to legitimately describe mental illness, and formed part of common parlance.
In any event, the newspaper said that the word was not a reference to the mental illnesses of all the clinic’s patients, nor any particular individual detained there.
The Post also offered to publish a letter from the complainant.
The IPSO Complaints Committee found the inspector’s report had been positive and contained no recommendations which had a direct impact on patient care.
In this context, the description of the report as a “shocker” and claim that the clinic had been “rapped” distorted the report’s findings in a manner that went beyond a legitimate editorial interpretation of the inspector’s conclusions.
However the Committee was satisfied that the term “deranged”, while pejorative, was used with reference to those individuals’ criminal behaviour and was not discriminatory in relation to their mental health specifically.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1, and the full adjudication can be read here.
The Post was also ordered to publish the adjudication on page 20 of the newspaper.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Lazy cliche-ridden journalism rather than anything malicious. There is a lot of it around still. Horror, shock, drama, etc remain great favourites after God knows how many years of the dead horses being flogged.
Reporters and editors seem to still believe it adds something to a story, as if readers cannot decide for themselves.
Deranged is a dangerous word because of its public perception, which is more important than its intended meaning as any libel lawyer will confirm.
Report this comment
Or to put it another way: readers aren’t stupid (in most cases). If it isn’t sensational, don’t try and make it sound like It is. People can spot that a mile off.
Report this comment
Abysmal defence around the use of the word ‘deranged’. The newspaper should be ashamed of itself. Either desperation to wriggle off the hook or massively self-deluded.
Cheery picking the negative from reports is what the media does. It’s standard practice but very often misleads readers.
Report this comment
I’d like to see the results of an inspector looking at any newspaper!
A commitment to staff training? Meaningful appraisals? Appropriate tools for the job? Established procedures communicated to all staff and in meaningful use? Clear statement of values? Managerial accountability? Clarity over escalating concerns? An open door policy for managers? Staff who understand the organisations vision? Appropriate levels of staffing? Established complaints procedure? Quality customer relationships?
How do you think your paper would do?
On the story, how do you think the people working there will react when their hard work is described as shocking when an inspector has awarded it good marks in all the categories? This kind of reporting is probably just as important as the internet in explaining why we’re all losing readers. And then to fight it all the way! Blimey.
Report this comment
I think most companies these days would be “shockers” and receive more than a rap over the knuckles.
In expect more than a few inmates in them are steadily becoming more deranged as they attempt to cope with life in these institutions.
Report this comment
This newspaper is a local version of The Sun of old. Same pumped up topspin in all stories. Every adjective exagerrated to sensationalise humdrum stuff. It’s forgotten its position as a caring, local newspaper – a local rag that everyone has a soft spot for,
Report this comment
On the sidelines is right but this hype will always inflict papers because there is always some new kid coming along who thinks he or she is the first to use shock horror etc. And there are few older hacks left to advise them. Shocking!
Report this comment
The fact that editors will often simply use a short word that fits into a headline does not help matters. I’ve covered a few stories which have involved a perfectly civil, polite disagreement between two parties which have ended up being described in my paper as a “row”.
Report this comment