A complaint over a quote wrongly-attributed to a regional daily reader has been upheld against the newspaper by the press watchdog.
Paul Metcalfe complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Essex daily The Echo breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article which reported he had told a meeting of residents and councillors that people were still walking their dogs on a stretch of beach owned by the Ministry of Defence.
Mr Metcalfe said he had not made the point attributed to him in the article, but had asked why developers had advertised properties as having a private park and beach, when the beach in question was not owned by the developers.
After the meeting, he was emailed by the newspaper’s reporter asking him to comment further on his question about dog walkers, to which he replied saying that he had not asked that question but he was happy to comment further about the question he had actually asked.
After contacting the Echo about the error through IPSO, it agreed to publish a correction, the text of which he approved in advance by email. However, the printed correction differed from the version he agreed.
The Echo accepted that it had inaccurately attributed the quote about dog walkers to the complainant. It said that its reporter had confused the point the complainant had made about the beach at the meeting, and a matter about dog walkers on the beach that arose in a conversation they had with a local councillor after the public meeting.
The reporter had not seen the complainant’s reply to his email before the article was published, and did not make the news desk aware of the issues raised by the complainant.
On receipt of the complaint, The Echo had offered to publish a correction, the text of which it believed the complainant had agreed to. It pointed out that the part of the sentence removed from the agreed correction was a line which the complainant had said was inaccurate in his correspondence.
Over the course of IPSO’s investigation, The Echo offered a further correct expanding on what went wrong in the editorial process which led to the attribution of the point about dog walkers to the wrong person.
IPSO found the attribution of the point about dog walkers to the wrong person, along with the failure of the reporter to deal with the complainant’s email confirming he did not speak about dog walkers at the meeting, demonstrated a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.
The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
The reporter “demonstrated a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.” It’s bad, sure, but the days of checking, proofing and checking again have long gone – especially now reporters spend much of their time uploading febrile trash to tatty websites. I’m sure 2016 will spell the end of most of the few sub-editors still employed in the local press and, when they’re gone, this sort of error will be the least of publishers’ problems. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Report this comment
I see your Point Minim but if the article states that at the point of going to press the reporter still believed that the man in question made the quote.
There would be no reason for a sub (unless they too were at the meeting) to question the reporter over who said it.
You could have the best subs in the world but a reporter quoting the wrong person from a public meeting would not be picked up.
Report this comment
Thanks for the comments, desker. My point on the subs is admittedly detached from the circumstances described here but I made it to sound a warning about far more serious errors than this one (which is bad enough) that will arise in the future. In the course of my working week, for example, I regularly correct stuff such as “the attacker was committed for trial at Crown Court in May”. Guilty! as pronounced by the Trumpton Bugle. As I say, the lawyers will be getting even richer.
Report this comment
Glad to see the all-powerful new watchdog isn’t wasting its time with anything trivial.
Report this comment
desker.
agree with you. the reporter fouled up. easily done at a busy meeting but I cannot fathom why the mistake was printed when the man pointed it out anyway! Did the editor take an interest in this?
Report this comment
It may be home the story was written but I read it as the reporter stated he did not see the email from the man saying he did not say it until after the paper went to print
Report this comment
“It may be home the story was written…………” What does that mean? Maybe the reporter should check his own copy because the subs have obviously missed it.
Report this comment