AddThis SmartLayers

Editors not expected to fact-check readers’ letters, IPSO rules

Editors should not be expected to verify all facts featured in readers’ letters, the press watchdog has ruled.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has rejected a complaint against the Maidenhead Advertiser by a man who hit national headlines when he and his wife took legal action over an adoption request, which had been turned down on the grounds that no children of their own ethnic background were available.

Sandeep Mander, who is of Indian heritage, complained to IPSO about a reader’s letter, published by the Advertiser, which claimed as “fact” that 3,000 “Asian/British Asian kids” were waiting to be adopted.

Complaining to IPSO under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Mr Mander said that, while he welcomed debate on the issues raised by a previous article on his case run by the newspaper, the 3,000 figure in the letter was inaccurate and had not been verified prior to publication – something which was particularly problematic where it was presented as a “fact”.

Sandeep and Reena Mander

Sandeep and Reena Mander

He added that only 3,320 children in total, out of 69,540 looked after children, were placed for adoption in 2015, so there was no possibility that 3,000 children of Asian or British Asian origin could have been available for adoption in March 2016.

Furthermore, Mr Mander said that the letter was inaccurate to say that 3,000 “kids” were waiting to be adopted, when the figures provided by the Adoption Register for the number of looked after children included young people up to the age of 18, with over half of the total being over the age of 10.

The Advertiser responded that, while it verified all letters, it did not ordinarily “fact check” them, in the interests of preserving freedom of expression for correspondents.

The correspondent had based the 3,000 figure on government figures for looked after children, which indicated that there were 3,130 looked after children of Asian or Asian British origin in 2016.

As a result, while not all of these children were subject to a placement or adoption order, in the correspondent’s view they were all “waiting to be adopted” so the Advertiser felt the correspondent was entitled to interpret the data in this way.

The Advertiser offered to publish a letter from Mr Mander presenting an alternative view, as well as an addendum to the original letter online stating the published figure had been disputed.

Mr Mander said a letter was not an appropriate remedy because the Advertiser should have checked the fact prior to publishing the letter, especially when the letter was a direct attack on him and his wife Reena.

IPSO acknowledged that it was neither reasonable nor desirable to expect editors to verify every fact contained in published letters.

It found the 3,000 figure was not, at face value, implausible, and the letter was clearly presented as the views of a correspondent who was not presented as having any particular authority on the matter.

However, IPSO welcomed the Advertiser’s offer of a publishing a letter from the complainant, in which he could have set out his views in full.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

4 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • May 4, 2018 at 9:09 am
    Permalink

    common sense. if someone wants to challenge the facts they can always send a follow-up letter. But beware defamation lurking in letters.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(15)
  • May 4, 2018 at 9:51 am
    Permalink

    From what I am reading here, the letter suggested the statistic was a “fact”. If it wasn’t, then I can see the point raised by the couple.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(14)
  • May 8, 2018 at 11:28 am
    Permalink

    IPSO is absolutely right. It is ludicrous to expect letters to be fact checked – they are all about opinion. If someone gets something wrong, or makes a stupid statement, it used to generate more letters, from those in a position to correct or counter the assertions originally made. That does not, of course, let editors off the hook – they still have to ensure they don’t get inadvertently used by those pursuing their own particular agenda. Anyway, these days genuine readers’ letters are as rare as hens’ teeth.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • May 9, 2018 at 10:51 am
    Permalink

    Antiquarian. good point about lack of letters. My old paper used to gave two pages, sometimes even three. Now it is lucky to get two letters. But then it has lost about 80 per cent of its readers since its peak, mostly because of JP journocide.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)