Georgia TomlinsonLast month marked the six-month anniversary since the big newspaper groups’ new regulator, IPSO, picked up where the failed PCC left off. At the beginning of 2015, we began publishing a regular blog, highlighting the lack of any discernible improvement in press standards. Sensationalism continues to trump accuracy, and often little or no care is given to the impact of reporting on vulnerable people or minority groups.During this time, we have identified a number of particularly worrying breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice and other guidelines, such as the Samaritans’ recommendations on reporting suicide, where IPSO has taken no action. The Sun, Mail and Express all published headlines speculating that a 29 year old woman had killed herself because she couldn’t face turning 30 without a husband and children, despite the Coroner clearly stating that “she was severely troubled by various aspects of her life”. Three newspapers – the Sun, the Daily Star and the Times – published photographs of the police officer wounded (and then murdered) in the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris in January without pixelating his face. This caused huge distress to his grieving family. The Sunday Mirror published a clearly identifiable picture of the new home of a convicted rapist who had moved house because of receiving death threats, putting members of the public at risk of mistaken vigilante attacks.In March 2015 we saw more of the same.The first story we highlight concerns the reporting of the Germanwings tragedy when a passenger plane crashed in the Alps, killing everyone on board. The coverage of the mental health of the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, was notable for a series of insensitive and sensational reports stigmatising mental illness.The Mail’s front page headline was ‘Why on earth was he allowed to fly?’ This violated the NUJ’s guidelines on the responsible reporting of mental health, mental illness and death by suicide that say “don’t stigmatise mental health and mental illness.” Long before the facts about Lubitz’s mental health had been established, the coverage jumped to the conclusion that there are certain jobs which people suffering from mental illness should not be doing, regardless of the severity of their symptoms or monitoring by their employers.The Sun’s front page headline ‘Madman in cockpit’ violated another NUJ guideline: “don’t use derogatory language when reporting mental illness”.The coverage also breached the Samaritans’ media guidelines for the reporting of suicide by speculating about the ‘trigger’ for the pilot’s apparent suicide. The front page of the Daily Express claimed to know ‘Why jet crash pilot turned killer: he was jilted and depressed,’ while the Star’s headline was ‘The jilted pilot who murdered 149.’ The Samaritans’ guidelines advise reporters not to ‘brush over the complex realities of suicide’ by oversimplifying these ‘triggers’ or supposed causes, so as to avoid copycat suicides.In response Mind, Time for Change and Rethink Mental Illness made the following statement:

The terrible loss of life in the Germanwings plane crash is tragic, and we send our deepest sympathies to the families. Whilst the full facts are still emerging, there has been widespread media reporting speculating about the link with the pilot’s history of depression, which has been overly simplistic. Clearly assessment of all pilots’ physical and mental health is entirely appropriate - but assumptions about risk shouldn't be made across the board for people with depression, or any other illness. There will be pilots with experience of depression who have flown safely for decades, and assessments should be made on a case by case basis. Today’s headlines risk adding to the stigma surrounding mental health problems, which millions of people experience each year, and we would encourage the media to report this issue responsibly.

Earlier in the month, two other – if less headline-grabbing – stories had also been reported in a way that violated the Samaritans’ guidelines.The Express reported the apparent suicide of a schoolgirl, Toni Connell; it did so in the absence of a coroner’s report setting out the cause of and triggers for the death. Instead, the Express assumed that it knew the reasons for the girl’s suicide by running the headline ‘Girl, 15, found dead after GCSEs snub’. This clearly implied that there was a link between her death and ‘being told she was not bright enough in maths at school,’ despite the fact that the cause of the death had not yet been confirmed. Moreover, the article implicitly compared the death with that of another girl from the school who had taken her life a year earlier.In another story, the Daily Star reported on the death of a television actor. The coroner had concluded that the actor had had “problems with his career, stress and his sexuality.” This was not reflected in the headline: “Troubled Corrie star suicide over work”. In doing so, this article also breached the Samaritans’ guidelines by speculating about the ‘trigger’ for the suicide, suggesting that he killed himself because ‘his career nose-dived.’ The article also included an explicit description of how and where the death happened, despite the fact that the Samaritans warn against “combining references to life circumstances…and descriptions of an easy-to-copy suicide method in the same report” so as to avoid the risk of copycat behaviour.It is striking that most of these stories do not breach Clause 5 ii) of the Editors’ Code, which merely says that “when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the methods used.” This is one of many ways in which the Editors’ Code is inadequate, as it refers only to the method and not to the triggers of an assumed suicide.Also in March, in an article headlined ‘Soccer ace and the girl ‘he bedded : Johnson in pose with his 15-year-old ‘fan’, the Sun published a picture of the alleged victim in a case where a footballer, Adam Johnson, had been arrested on suspicion of having had sex with an under-age girl. While the girl’s face is pixelated, she is clearly identifiable. This is a violation of the Children in Sex cases clause of the Editors’ Code of Practice which states that “the child must not be identified.”Astonishingly, the article includes a quote from a police spokesperson saying “Anyone who identifies someone who may be a victim of sexual assault is committing a criminal act,” while references to the case of Ched Evans - the convicted rapist whose victim has been widely and illegally identified on social media - makes publication of the photograph even more hypocritical.Also this month, some corrections and clarifications have thrown up possible breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice:The first is a correction from the Daily Mail, which reads:

Our January 5 article 'Blindness fears over eye surgery at High St clinic' suggested that Optical Express risks causing its patients blindness through their procedures and choice of replacement lens implants. We accept this is completely untrue and Optical Express has confirmed that none of its more than 600, 000 patients has ever gone blind following any treatment at its clinics. Our article also stated that more than 50 patients have joined a class action law suit against the lens manufacturer Oculentis and Optical Express over safety fears about the lens. In fact, no proceedings have been commenced. We apologise for these incorrect statements.

This correction took over three months to be published, despite the online article being corrected after a few days. This is a breach of clause 1 ii) of the Editor’s Code which says that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly.” It also breaches the Daily Mail’s own policy: “At the Daily Mail we take great pride in the quality of our journalism…We aim to correct any errors as promptly as possible.”The article was also a clear violation of Clause 1 i) of the code, which stipulates that “the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.” Not only were a number of inaccuracies published, which have the capacity to severely tarnish Optical Express’s reputation, but the reference to ‘Blindness’ in the headline was a very prominent inaccuracy. Clause 2 ii) also specifies that ‘a significant accuracy…once recognised, should be corrected with due prominence,’ however the correction was significantly smaller than the original article.

Another reputation which could have been tarnished by inaccuracies and the republishing of material without fact checking was that of actor Roger Moore. A Daily Mail correction read:

An article on October 20, 2014 headed "Spy who 'groped' me" reported claims in an Australian magazine that Sir Roger Moore had groped a young actress, Debbie Newman, during the filming of the Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, and made inappropriate advances towards her. We have been informed by both Sir Roger and Ms Newsome that these claims are false, and accept that the allegations were untrue. We apologise to Sir Roger for any distress and embarrassment caused.

This is another example of the worrying absence of fact-checking, something we have highlighted in previous blogs. Editors are always responsible for checking the accuracy of a story even if it is published elsewhere first.After six months, newspaper editors are continuing to engage in discriminatory reporting of minority groups, while IPSO is ‘missing in action’. Clause 12. i) of the Editors’ Code says that ‘the Press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.’ Whilst this specifically (and regrettably) does not cover prejudicial or pejorative references to groups of people such as travellers, Leveson suggested there was a need for revision to the Code, saying “…issues arise in relation to the interpretation and application of clause 12 of the Editors’ Code, and the arguable need to identify an individual target of discrimination.”This month, whilst there were no directly prejudicial attacks on travellers, several articles were framed in a discriminatory way. An article in the Sun headed ‘Gypsy kings’, describes how a council supposedly “blows cash” on homes for eight traveller families, and devotes most of the article’s space to the views of a ‘disgusted’ local resident. The Mail also had a two-page spread with the headline: ‘Town that dared to ban gipsy invaders: illegal camps like this blight towns across Britain. But now – furious at police inaction – one community has shown you CAN fight back.’In the light of previous discriminatory stories, for example the coverage of John Knott’s murder-suicide in August which inaccurately blamed a young traveller woman for a tragic event, newspaper editors should improve the accuracy and fairness of their reporting of stories involving travellers.As we mentioned in the February blog, a particularly striking feature of IPSO’s “rulings” on complaints is its continuing failure to deal with misleading headlines. Relying on the absurd idea that an inaccurate headline is not misleading (or even a significant inaccuracy) if the “overall meaning” of the article is correct, IPSO has rejected a number of complaints about super-size misleading headlines which are corrected in small type in the body of the article. And therefore it comes as no surprise that it has failed to investigate these ones.An example from this month is when David Walliams split from his wife, Lara Stone. The Sun ran a front page story with the headline ‘Camp David’, claiming that ‘Lara couldn’t stand star’s “cross-dressing” antics.’ This was speculation based on quotes from ‘a friend’ and the Sun itself clarified - on page 5 - that “there is no suggestion he cross-dresses in his personal life.” Despite this admission, a similar claim was made in an article the following day when The Sun talked about ‘The comic…whose wife Lara Stone left him over his camp antics.’ This second article contains the inaccuracy reported in the headline two days earlier, despite the fact that the earlier inaccuracy was clarified in the body of the same article.

Another misleading front page story was the Mail on Sunday’s headline “Top BBC Boss: ‘Clarkson is like Savile,” which was then republished the next day on the front page of the Star. What the BBC executive actually said, which was reported inside the paper, was “the TV chief… likened Clarkson’s supporters – including the Prime Minister – to those who turned a blind eye to Savile’s appalling crimes.” At no point are the words ‘Clarkson is like Savile’ used, despite the front page words and inverted commas.

This headline has similarities with another story we reported in last month’s blog, referring to a journalist’s use of the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment.’ On his blog BBC Correspondent Nick Robinson referred to a conversation with one of Ed Miliband’s aides where he compared the HSBC scandal to the events that followed the realisation that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, in that it provided an opportunity for Ed Miliband to stand up to powerful interests. Despite Nick Robinson tweeting and writing in a blog post that he “did not quote anyone” referring to a Milly Dowler moment, the papers seized on this and published a series of articles with misleading headlines that accused the Labour party of using Milly Dowler in its electioneering.In both cases a commentator has invoked a tragedy to articulate the manner in which someone has defended or stood up to powerful interests. In both cases, the press has deliberately misrepresented the commentator’s words, using misleading headlines to create a sensationalist story damaging to Ed Miliband and the BBC respectively.After six months of IPSO, are the editors of Britain’s national newspapers improving their standards? Are the ‘threats’ of IPSO’s investigations and fines encouraging editors to check their facts more thoroughly? The answer is unequivocal. Nothing has changed.