Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02577-20 West Midlands Ambulance Service v
thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. West
Midlands Ambulance Service complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “FRONTLINE HEROES AT RISK Over half of
paramedics test positive for coronavirus in one force at the West Midlands
Ambulance Service”, published on 10 April 2020 and an article headlined “MORE
OF US WILL DIE' Paramedics plead for better PPE as they tackle coronavirus in
flimsy aprons thinner than bin bags”, published on 19 April 2020.
2. The
first article reported on the coronavirus test results of an ambulance service,
and had stated in the headline that half of the paramedics at the West Midlands
Ambulance Service had tested positive for coronavirus. The article went on to
explain that “Nearly 500 West Midlands Ambulance Service staff have been given
swabs and, of the 114 confirmed results so far, 58 were positive and 56
negative”.
3. The
second article reported on the personal protective equipment (PPE) that whistle
blowers alleged that paramedics were wearing. The article was based on
interviews conducted with paramedics and included descriptions of the PPE that
were given to the publication by these paramedics. The article reported that "Better
quality protective gear is in such short supply that ambulance crews have been
told to use it only if a patient is showing symptoms of coronavirus or is in
cardiac arrest.” It contained a quote from a paramedic who said: “I have an
agreement with my colleague where one will do chest compressions in the plastic
bib while the other changes. “Then they return and take over while the other
gets changed. We are having to adapt to protect ourselves and patients because
the guidelines don’t make sense in real life.” The article also reported that
paramedics were “left with flimsy surgical masks with wide gaps, offering
minimal protection.”
4. The
complainant, the ambulance service referred to in the first article, and where
one of the interviewed paramedics in the second article worked, said that the
first article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said it was inaccurate
to report that half of the paramedics had tested positive for coronavirus. It
said that the group tested included a wide range of ambulance service staff,
and not only paramedics. In addition, the complainant said that only half of
the results that had been received at the time of publication were positive,
not half of all the tests. It also said it was a breach of Clause 1 for the publication
not to put the allegation that over half of paramedics had tested positive for
coronavirus to the complainant prior to the article being published, as it
would have been able to dispute this allegation, or have its position on the
record. The complainant also said that the publication had breached Clause 1 by
not including the comment that was given prior to publication by the ambulance
service, which stated that it would “not be providing an update” and gave more
information about the testing it was doing.
5. The
complainant also said the second article breached Clause 1. It had provided a
statement to the publication prior to the publication of the second article,
which had said that ”If there is a cardiac arrest, there is clear guidance as
to what staff should do to protect themselves and save lives. One crew member
should carry out cardiac massage while the second dons Level 3 PPE. They will
then take over the cardiac massage while the first dons Level 3 PPE - they can
then carry out advanced airway management if the back up ambulance crew has not
already arrived in Level 3 PPE.” It said that this course of action was the
Public Health England guidance, and it was therefore misleading to report that
staff were asked to follow this procedure due to a lack of level 3 PPE.
However, this statement was not included in the article. It also said that the
surgical masks provided were appropriate for the role that the staff members
would be carrying out where they were told to wear level 2 PPE. It noted that
surgical masks were not supposed to be a tight fit, and it was misleading to
refer to them as being of minimal protection, or having “wide gaps”.
6. The
complainant also said that both articles were in breach of Clause 1 as they had
distorted the information in a manner which was scaremongering, and
deliberately used emotive language and terminology to frighten the public.
7. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. With regards to the headline
of the first article, it noted that the article set out the number of tests
taken, the number of results confirmed and of that, the number of positive and
negative results. On receipt of the complaint, it amended the headline to read:
Over half of paramedics who received coronavirus results at one force test
positive for deadly bug, and prior to IPSO’s investigation it offered to
publish a correction as a footnote. In its first response to IPSO’s
investigation, it offered the following wording:
A
previous headline on this article said that half of the paramedics had tested
positive for coronavirus. It has been amended to make clear that half of those
who had received their test results at the time of publication had tested
positive.
The
publication also said that the article went on to make clear that the tests had
been received by staff in general, and in any case that the complainant had not
disputed that of these staff, over half of paramedics who had received their
results had tested positive. The publication said that the complainant’s comment
had not been included due to space reasons, but in any case there was no
obligation under the Editors’ Code to include a statement, as selection was a matter
of editorial discretion.
8. Prior
to the second article, the publication had put the allegations regarding level
2 and 3 PPE and when they could be used to the complainant. In this email, it
noted that this was the advice given by PHE. It also noted that the PPE often
did not fit properly. The publication said that the article was based on
interviews it had done with paramedics. It noted that one of the paramedics had
told the reporter that they were unhappy about the level of PPE and advice
given to them, and felt that it left them exposed. A paramedic also told the
publication that they had asked whether they could wear a higher level of PPE
than advised, but that their employer had told them that there was not enough,
and that they could only wear it in certain, limited situations. It also noted
that PHE’s advice followed went against that recommended by the Resuscitation
Council. The publication said that masks should fit properly, and that this
should not be contested.
9. The
publication did not accept that the articles were scaremongering. It said that
newspapers have a duty to hold people to account, and that if the articles were
frightening to readers, it was because coronavirus had created a frightening
situation, and it was not the role of newspapers to ‘sugar coat’ this.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between
comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
headline of the first article had stated that “Over half of paramedics test
positive for coronavirus in one force at the West Midlands Ambulance Service”.
The publication had received the precise figures of the staff members who had
been tested and those who had received the result prior to the publication of
the first article. The newspaper was therefore aware that only 58 of the 500
swabs taken had received a positive test result at the time of publication. In
addition, whilst the article went on to report that the swabs had been taken
from staff members in general, the headline and subheading referred only to paramedics.
The publication had gone to the complainant for comment, but it had not asked
which staff members had tested positively, or put to the complainant that half
of paramedics, rather than general staff members, had received a positive test
result. Had the publication taken care to put all the allegations to the
complainant, the complainant would have been able to respond with the correct
position or give a comment that accurately reflected its position in relation
to the allegation. On the basis that the publication had the correct
information as to who had been tested and the proportion of tests which had
returned a positive result but had not reported this accurately in the
headline, the publication had failed to take care not to report inaccurate information
in breach of Clause 1(i). As the inaccuracy was contained in the headline and
overstated the number of positive tests, as well as stating that the results
were returned only by paramedics rather than the staff generally, this was a
significant inaccuracy which necessitated a correction under Clause 1(ii).
11.
Prior to IPSO’s investigation the publication amended the headline to read:
Over half of paramedics who received coronavirus results at one force test
positive for deadly bug, and offered to add a correction as a footnote to the
article, which clarified that it was half of those who had received test
results who had been found to be positive. However, the amended headline and
the offered wording failed to make clear that the positive test results had not
been returned only by the paramedics, as reported in the original headline, but
by the complainant’s staff in general. The publication did not offer a
correction on this point and therefore there was a further breach of Clause
1(ii).
12. As for the comment that had been supplied by the complainant prior to publication, the Committee expressed concern that it had not been included in the article due to a lack of space. It noted the finding already made that the publication’s approach to the complainant had amounted to a failure to take care under Clause 1(i) for the reasons previously stated. However, the omission of the complainant’s comment in the article did not constitute a further breach of Clause 1(i) as it did not address the allegations made in the article, and simply stated that the complainant would not be providing any further comment.
13. With
regards to the second article, the Committee noted that it was clear from the
article that it was based on interviews with paramedics, and their opinion on
the level of PPE they were given. The article reported that ambulance crews had
been told only to wear better quality PPE when a patient was showing symptoms
of coronavirus or was in cardiac arrest
because higher protection PPE was in such short supply. It also included a
quote from a paramedic who said he had to “adapt” and had “an agreement” with a
colleague as to how they would treat a patient whilst the other changed into
PPE. The complainant accepted that paramedics were advised to wear level 2 PPE
unless a patient was in cardiac arrest, but said that this was based on advice
from Public Health England which stated that other procedures did not require
level 3 PPE; it was not because the complainant was unable to provide level 3
PPE for reason of it being in short supply. Prior to publication, the
complainant had been asked to comment on the claim that level 3 PPE could only
be used if a patient was in cardiac arrest, but had failed to ask whether this
policy was due to a lack of PPE. The complainant was therefore not given an
opportunity to comment on this aspect of the allegation. In addition, the
comment which was provided by the complainant, which set out that the policy
was issued in accordance with Public
Health England guidance for the allocation of PPE, was not included in the
article. The article did not, therefore, make clear that it was the
complainant’s position that this was official policy by way of a response to
the comment of the source that this was
undertaken by “agreement” between colleagues. On this basis, the publication
had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information under Clause
1(i). The misleading information was significant as it formed one of the
central criticisms of the article, and portrayed the complainant as failing in
its duties as an employer, when, in fact, it said it was following the guidance
of Public Health England. A correction was required under Clause 1(ii).
14. The
publication had not offered a correction, and there was a further breach of
Clause 1(ii).
15. The
complainant said that both articles had breached Clause 1 as they were
scaremongering. The Committee noted that the Editors’ Code makes clear that the
press has the right to shock, to challenge, to entertain, be satirical and be
partisan. Therefore, the complainant’s concerns that this article was
scaremongering did not engage the terms of Clause 1.
Conclusions
16. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
17.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial
action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a
breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction
and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
18. In
respect of the headline to the first article, the Committee considered that the
publication did not take the necessary care to accurately report the correct
proportion and which staff members had tested positive for coronavirus. In
respect of the second article, it had failed to take care to report why certain
levels of PPE were worn by paramedics by omitting to include the complainant’s
position on the matter. The Committee considered that the appropriate remedy
was the publication of a correction which would put the correct position on
record.
19. The
Committee then considered the placement of the corrections. They should appear
as footnotes to the corresponding articles, and as standalone corrections
published on the publication’s website, appearing on the top half of the
newspaper’s homepage, on the first screen, for 24 hours; and should then be
archived in the usual way. Each should state that it has been published
following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The
full wording and position should be agreed with IPSO in advance.
Date
complaint received: 10/04/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/12/2020
Back to ruling listing