AddThis SmartLayers

Weekly rapped for reproducing sister title’s story without full comment

A weekly newspaper has been rapped after failing to include a full comment in a story reproduced from one of its sister titles.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld a complaint against the Sevenoaks Chronicle after it ran a story about a company which had been fined for selling underweight tins of apricots, originally published nine days earlier by a fellow Reach plc publication online.

The publication of the Chronicle’s version prompted Peter Tindal, the company’s owner, to complain to IPSO, saying it had misleadingly reported that he had been contacted and declined to comment.

His company had given an extensive comment to the other Reach title, unnamed in IPSO’s ruling, which had been published following a complaint by Mr Tindal about an early version of the story and was freely available for quoting.

Apricots

But nine days later the Chronicle reproduced the early version of the story which did not include the comment.

IPSO found that failing to include the statement in the Chronicle’s story represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mr Tindal said the paper had inaccurately reported the apricots as being sold in a tin, when they were in fact sold in jars, and claimed it had inaccurately reported the Weights and Measure Act in how it applied in this case by miscalculating the legal minimum weight that the apricots could weigh in this instance.

He expressed frustration that the inaccuracies were reproduced in print nine days after the original online article was published and then amended at his request.

In response, the Chronicle said a journalist representing the sister publication which published the original article did contact Mr Tindal for comment, and accepted that a full comment was given, blaming a miscommunication for the fact it was not included in its article.

It also accepted that it had misreported the amount that the jars were underweight, saying the same internal error had caused this.

The Chronicle accepted that these were errors which required correction, and pointed out that when it was contacted directly by Mr Tindal, prior to any involvement by IPSO, it offered to publish a correction and include his statement on the claims the next available edition to address these errors.

Mr Tindal rejected this offer both before and during IPSO’s investigation.

IPSO found the Chronicle’s failure to include the statement represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information, and gave a significantly misleading impression of Mr Tindal’s position on the matter.

It added the reference to the fruits being sold in a tin did not give a misleading impression as to the nature of the product.

The Chronicle’s offer to publish a correction was a satisfactory sanction, and IPSO said it should now do this.

The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.