Opinion: How newspapers get away with unethical reporting of small boat arrivals

Every day, a few hundred people arrive on UK soil after fleeing their own homes due to fear of persecution or their safety. 

93,296 people made asylum applications in the UK, in the year ending September 2023. 

A lack of real accountability for inaccuracy in press reports means there is nothing to stop newspapers framing a negative narrative of immigration and asylum issues. Language has an impact on real people and discriminatory coverage contributes to public misunderstanding about the experience of some of the most vulnerable in our society. 

"We do not have a means to complain about discrimination towards groups or categories of people, it’s an absolute outrage’- this is what Mary-Ann Ochota, broadcaster and anthropologist, found out when she complained to IPSO. 

Here, she shares her first hand experience of the press complaints process. 

Last year, Mary-Ann Ochota complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about a Sunday Times article headlined “Sunak’s threat to pull UK out of the ECHR”. 

When IPSO eventually upheld Mary-Ann's complaint of accuracy because the article was found to have conflated the numbers of “illegal migrants” who had entered the country with asylum seekers in a misleading way.

Not only did it take IPSO 6 months to rule on this obvious breach of standards, but the complaints-handler refused to consider a complaint of discrimination and tried to have the complaint thrown out.

It was only the persistence and expertise of Mary-Ann which ensured the complaint was ultimately upheld.

The article reported that the prime minister was “prepared to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) after being warned that 65,000 illegal migrants are expected to come to the country this year.”  “Official estimates suggest there will be almost a 50 per cent increase in illegal migration last year, when 45,000 claimed asylum, many of them after crossing the Channel in small boats”. 

It explained that the source of the 65,000 figure was “an official computer model that tracks migration flows around the world”.

Mary-Ann said she believed  the article breached Clause 1 (what is clause one to our readers?) because it used the terms “illegal migration” and “illegal migrants” to describe asylum seekers giving  the inaccurate impression that people seeking asylum had done something illegal, which she argued misrepresented UK law, as the law does not describe asylum seekers themselves – or the act of seeking asylum – as “illegal”.

Six months later, IPSO reached its decision on Mary Ann’s complaint and finally ruled in her favour.  

 When Mary-Ann read the article for the first time during an appearance as a panellist for Sky News press review program she realised the language being used was misleading. 

“I’ve never complained to IPSO before. I was angry that the baseline of language from a publication like The Times was to conflate the ideas of illegal migration, asylum seekers, small boats issue. To bring this idea word illegal is a step too far.

“It seemed obvious to me as inappropriate language that is not only inaccurate but also harmful. But I thought it’s all very good of me having the huge privilege to critique the news as a panellist. But not everyone has that opportunity.”

The story was published ahead of parliamentary debates on the ‘illegal migration bill’ - which became an act in July 2023. 

IPSO said that there was no grounds to investigate a breach of accuracy or discrimination. 

Mary-Ann decided to appeal this decision and requested a review. 

Talking about the process, she said “My experience was to doubt yourself. It’s intimidating”. 

Eventually IPSO agreed to investigate whether there had been a breach of the code in regards to accuracy but not into the issue of whether the article incited hatred against asylum seekers. 

The Editors code offers no protection for categories or groups of people.  IPSO only investigate complaints about specific individuals, mentioned by the press. 

Mary Ann said,“The Times defence was that there was a bill in parliament about illegal migration. You can arrive illegally but then legally claim asylum. Which is legally right. But massively misses the point”.

“The term illegal migrants has harmful resonance”. 

People must reach the UK before they can seek asylum. But there is no provision for anyone to travel to the UK to make such a claim. For those fleeing persecution, international human rights law entitles them to enter without permission. But because there are no safe and legal routes to the UK, many women, men and children are compelled to attempt dangerous journeys in order to exercise their right to seek asylum in the UK. 

“Newspapers write harmful things about migrants and asylum seekers. That is self-evident” says Mary-Ann. 

“But the fact we do not have a means to complain about discrimination towards groups or categories of people is an absolute outrage. Unless it would pass a criminal test for police to investigate, which is a hugely high bar”. 

“This isn’t a criminal matter, from my perspective this is irresponsible journalism” she added. 

A correction was  finally published, six months after Mary-Ann submitted her complaint. 

Mary-Ann says there should be a better deterrent for editors and newspapers. 

“No one really reads footnotes. Does a footnote do justice to the harm the original article caused? No”.

“The system doesn’t really have teeth. The threat is we’re going to publish a tiny footnote. Newspapers can take that hit. They don’t care.”

“It felt like I had to defend the case and justify it. Rather than the body of IPSO doing that on behalf of the person complaining. 

“I’m not the barrister. I shouldn't have to be arguing the case”. 

“I’m a university graduate who writes for a living, in a journalistic world. I write technically and spend time talking and working with journalists. Even if I don’t understand, I have the confidence to bring that experience, to navigate my way through. But I’m aware that’s not something everyone has.”

“Wouldn’t it be better if we could trust journalists to write accurately and non discriminatory in the first place?” she said. 

What can you do? 

Hacked Off exists to identify and call out unethical press reporting.  If you come across something inaccurate or discriminatory, you can write to us and we will assist with a complaint.

The sham press regulator IPSO refuses to take complaints about discriminatory language which is aimed at minority groups, but together we can raise awareness of this issue and call for change.

A first hand experience dealing with the sham regulator IPSO.

By Ed Garland

In August 2023, I wrote a letter of complaint to The Cambrian News about this lie that appeared in a local Tory’s opinion column: ‘more young people have died from lockdown induced suicide than from Covid’. In the paper’s next edition, my letter appeared alongside another that also discussed the same column. But the piece of covid denialism I’d complained about continued to bother me in the weeks after the letter’s publication. Surely, I thought, that lie had breached the editorial code of practice. So I lodged a complaint with IPSO.

As soon as IPSO had emailed the paper’s editor and I to see if we could come to a resolution ourselves, the editor asked for my phone number. I declined – I hadn’t requested a phone conversation, and since it wouldn’t have been recorded, I wasn’t sure if I could have used any of its contents as evidence in the proceedings. Then he pointed out that the offending lie had appeared in a column clearly labelled as opinion, and that he had already published my letter about it. I argued that he should also print a correction, because it is not possible to have an opinion on that particular claim about the proportion of young people who died of ‘lockdown-induced suicide’. There is no way to interpret the available data to support the claim – it is simply untrue. He then offered to print a correction that said ‘subsequent’ research revealed the claim to be false. This offer was hilarious because it would have obscured the basis of my complaint: the research that showed the claim to be false was already available at the time the column was printed. Why did he think I’d accept a correction that was itself incorrect?

I asked the editor to print a correction that said the claim ‘was not true at the time and is not true now,’ and requested that he publish it adjacent to the writer’s next column in the paper. I didn’t think he’d agree to that placement, since it’s not standard practice, and sure enough he printed it in the usual ‘corrections and clarifications’ section. But I still like to imagine it’s possible for newspapers to demonstrate editorial integrity by making their corrections as prominent as their errors.

If you read the IPSO ruling, you’ll see that sometimes I ‘did not respond’ to the editor’s emails. I’d started to doubt myself, fearing that I’d turned into the kind of person who writes to their local paper to be cantankerous about trivial things. But now, I’m glad I contacted IPSO to create a public record of the fact that the paper published this lie, and that the editor attempted to obscure the full extent of the error. The false claim was relatively small-scale but not trivial: it was a local part of the same truth-devaluing, trust-eroding behaviour that some government politicians and media figures engage in at national and international levels. I still don’t understand why we let them get away with it.

Ed Garland is the author of Earwitness: A Search for Sonic Understanding in Stories, a collection of essays that consider what fictional sonic experiences can tell us about sound in everyday life. He is on Instagram @edgarland5000

Press Justice Project launches in the House of Lords

On November 28th, in a packed room at the House of Lords, The Press Justice Project had its launch party. 

The Project, founded and Chaired by Stephen Kinsella OBE, will advise members of the public affected by press abuse and guide them through the complaints-handling processes which exist. 

It will also educate the next generation of journalists about press standards with guest lectures at universities, raise awareness among the public and civil society about press standards, and campaign on behalf of individuals affected by press wrongdoing for a more accountable press. 

Some of these activities had previously been carried out by Hacked Off, but in future will be taken on by the Project – while Hacked Off continues to focus on campaigning and legislative change as before. 

The launch party was hosted by Lord Lipsey, an award-winning journalist and senior Member of the House of Lords, who spoke about the importance of having a more responsible press. 

Chairperson Stephen also gave a few words, explaining why the Charity was formed and what work it will undertake. 

The other speaker was Danielle Bennett, a beautician whose business was destroyed by false allegations in the Daily Mail.  After fighting for years with the newspaper, she eventually won an apology and settlement. 

Before she was vindicated, the impact of the Mail’s libel took a terrible toll on her life; deeply affecting her mental health and personal life. 

She now sits on the Board of the Project, so that she can help other people affected by press wrongdoing. 

Danielle and Stephen will be joined on the Board by retired schoolteacher Christopher Jefferies, who was affected by false and libellous allegations that he murdered his tenant, business-owner John Shepherd who was targeted in The Times, and Professor Christopher Frost, a journalist, journalism educator, and the Chair of the NUJ Ethics Council. 

To learn more and keep up to date with the work of The Project, you can sign up to its mailing list here, and follow on Facebook, LinkedIn or X.