An inaccuracy which caused a regional daily to be rapped by the press watchdog has been put down to a sub-editor “not reading the story properly.”
The Oxford Mail wrongly claimed a mayor had been “forced” to hand over her ceremonial chains in an online article about her stepping down from the role.
The headline accompanying the web version of the story stated ‘Controversial Carterton mayor Lynn Little forced to hand over chains’, prompting Mrs Little to complain to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
The Mail accepted the headline was inaccurate and offered to publish a correction online on this point following her complaint, but IPSO still ruled the paper had breached the Editors’ Code of Practice over the error.
The article reported that Mrs Little, then the mayor of Carterton, would “conclude five years in office following months of council infighting”, and that another councillor would take on the role following a unanimous vote, with his position set to become official at a meeting in May.
It added she had recently suffered an “onslaught of criticism” from fellow councillors who had accused her of “misappropriating funds”, and that a motion had been carried to establish whether the complainant would face legal action if she failed to return £4,835 paid out of the “Mayor’s Allowance Account”, to “non charitable activities” between 2015 and 2017.
Mrs Little said the headline was inaccurate because she was not “forced” to hand over her chains, but rather it was the case that her mayoral term was coming to an end and she had voluntarily made the decision not to run for another term.
The Mail accepted that it was incorrect to report that she was “forced” to give up her chains, saying this was a result of a sub-editor not reading the story properly before inserting the headline.
However, it denied other claims made by Mrs Little about the accuracy of its story.
IPSO found the headline error was a significant inaccuracy because it suggested Mrs Little was involuntarily made to resign as mayor as a result of the issues discussed in the article, which was not the case.
However, it found no other breaches of code on any other points raised by Mrs Little.
The complaint was upheld, as was a similar complaint by Mrs Little about the same headline’s appearance on the website of the Mail’s Newsquest sister title the Witney Gazette.
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
If this was an error by a sub-editor then imagine the potential nightmares on those papers where they have got rid of subs altogether. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
Report this comment
Pretty cheap move hanging the sub out to dry like that. At least have a bit of class and show some responsibility further up the chain of command.
Report this comment
I wonder how many subs the Oxford Mail is fortunate enough to have? If it is anything like the NQ title I used to work for it is almost zero.
Report this comment
Does the OM have any subs?
Report this comment
Even if the sub had got the headline wrong – and it happens, we’ve all done it – was there no additional (senior) pair of eyes to give pages a once-over before they were sent? I’m guessing not…
Report this comment
And there was I thinking the Editor was responsible and publicly accountable for everything that appears in the paper. Silly me.
Report this comment
I’m sorry but, even as a former chief sub, I’ll admit that I no longer understand the need for sub editors.
From the business side, errors clearly still get through and always have done. Without subs, the potential increased costs of payouts compared with the reduction in staffing costs is clearly in favour of the business. Just look at this case. How much did it actually cost? A online correction ‘near the top of the website’. Big whoop!
From the reputation side, it slightly exacerbates an existing reason for readers to stop buying the paper – trust! For online readers, if anyone local actually read it in the first place, it was corrected. The reality is that no one except the former mayor’s family and a couple of councillors would really care anyway.
The audience has changed and the industry is changing. We have to accept that subs aren’t part of the future and move on. This has been more than clear for the last nine or ten years. Pretty much a year or two after the first iPhone came out!
It’s like taxi drivers moaning about self-driving cars when everyone eventually has one. If I was a taxi driver today, I’d be planning my way out now and not in 10 years’ time!
Report this comment
I have to say though, there have been many times when a sub has written a headline for my stories that doesn’t match the essence of the tale at all.
Report this comment
In my experience there have been super subs, mediocre subs, and subs who were failed reporters who should never be left within reach of copy.. Not many of any of them left now.
Report this comment
Perhaps they put the blame on a sub in the safe knowledge that there is no such person at the Oxford Mail.
Report this comment
Oliver – what a lot of absolute tosh. Maybe if the OM hadn’t got rid of its experienced subs based in the Osney Meads office – so that it’s now subbed by people in Weymouth who have a minute to write a headline – this mistake wouldn’t have happened. No wonder papers are going down the toilet, They are now littered with mistakes, online and in print. To ‘save money’. Yeah well done.
And Frank, many times I’ve read a reporter’s piece that made no sense, period.
Report this comment
@one-time sub: Unfortunately it would seem there was probably no-one “spare” to check it over given the way newspapers have pared back staff so much. It frightens me the way the industry is going. It will only need a huge libel clanger and payout to take place for people to realise that it is dangerous to pare the bone so much – but I have a horrible feeling that modern management don’t understand that because so many of them don’t have newspapers in their blood. They just see papers as a product.
Report this comment
Suzanne, this was a subbing mistake. It wasn’t a geographical issue so where it was made is irrelevant and time would be as precious no matter where they were. The reputational damage remains the same but what was the punishment? A correction… online!
If newspapers were littered with this kind of mistake, I’d agree with you about them going down the toilet, but that’s not the case. The average member of the public doesn’t really care about a few grammatical errors or the occasional spelling mistake because, more often than not, they don’t even notice and make exactly the same errors themselves on Facebook etc.
And if you ever read a reporter’s piece that makes no sense, you need a better newsdesk, not subs!
Report this comment
There are no longer subs based remotely within Newsquest. When the story was first published back in February 2018, the subbing hubs had been closed 8 months.
That said, even IF it had been subbed by one of the hard working, underpaid and overly criticised copy editors within either Newport or Weymouth, they wouldn’t have edited the online versions anyway, that is the responsibility of publishing centre.
People make mistakes. I’m sure lessons were learnt.
Report this comment
So is this the final nail in the coffin of sub-editors?
Report this comment
Still awake at the back, I didn’t know Weymouth had gone as well – sorry. Who IS subbing at the OM? As far as I know, they also got rid of the last of the subs in-house. My point was that there was hardly any time to write a headline because, as you say, the folk at the hubs in Newport and Weymouth were overworked. As far as I was shown, Knowledge meant that pieces subbed remotely for print were then automatically uploaded to the web. I suppose it all changed but the point still stands that anyone saying we don’t need subs doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Report this comment
Anyone who says we don’t need subs anymore is acutely aware of the reality of the challenges facing the industry and the desperate need for wholesale change. Clinging on to historic practices, in all areas of the business, only prolongs the inevitable. We need a business model that works!
Report this comment