IPSO - Perhaps not so "independent"?

Do you remember the Daily Express article about the “800” shotguns seized in in Italy on their way from Turkey to Belgium?  You can view it online here.

We encouraged people to complain to the IPSO about the article as it was full of inaccuracies, and many of you did....

As far as we are aware the IPSO have rejected all the complaints. Examples of some of the reasoning are as follows;

"You complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that article was inaccurate and misleading because the photograph did not display at Winchester SXP shotgun. The caption on the photograph made clear that the image was of a “pump-action shotgun”, which we note is a type of pump-action shotgun not dissimilar from a Winchester SXP shotgun. As a result, we did not consider that the image was inaccurate or misleading; as such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1."

This is the image of the "pump-action" shotgun that the Daily Express used and the IPSO claim is "not dissimilar from a Winchester SXP shotgun".

The range of Winchester SXP shotguns can be viewed on the Winchester Repeating Arms website. We can't find this shotgun on their website, why, because it is not a Winchester SXP shotgun, so why did the Express use it?  Simple it looks scary.

“You complained under Clause 1 that the article had referred to the seized shotguns as “rifles” on a number of occasions. In the context of an article that focused on the seizure of 800 guns in Italy, we did not consider that any discrepancy between “shotguns” and “rifles” was significantly misleading; as such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1”

A simple search of the Internet comes up with definition of “rifle” and “shotgun” from the Oxford dictionary as follows; 

Rifle

 “A gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance”

Shotgun

 “A smooth-bore gun for firing small shot at short range.”

In our book there is a significant difference between a rifle and a shotgun.

 “You complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that it was inaccurate and misleading for the article to report that the 800 guns seized were “ISIS weapons” because there was no evidence to back up that assertion. The article reported that “it remains unclear where the cache of weapons was heading but authorities in Italy, where the haul was discovered, warned of the risk that it could end up in ISIS hands”. The article made clear that basis for the claim made in the article and in such circumstances, we did not consider that the headline was inaccurate and misleading. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.”

The authorities in Italy have not claimed a link with ISIS or any other terrorist organisation. In fact they state that there is no link whatsoever.  This was simply administration error that could (and should) have been avoided.

So we have sloppy journalism, we kind of expect that nowadays, but what is worse is that the organisation that is supposed to be ensuring that articles are factually correct and not misleading appears to be very much on the side of the media.  Perhaps not as independent as they suggest?

Those of you who did complain and have had your complaint rejected we now encourage you to tell the IPSO that you want your complaint reviewed by the IPSO Executive Committee.