Press regulator gets it wrong on Daily Express ‘ISIS guns’ story

Press regulator IPSO has ruled that the Daily Express was right to refer to a shipment of 800 shotguns, impounded for customs irregularities, as being destined for ISIS – even though there was zero evidence to support that claim.

The offending article, headlined “Paris massacre cops arrest German arms dealer, as 800 ‘ISIS weapons’ seized” was published on 27th November. An archived copy is available online here. It was bylined to Tom Batchelor and Leda Reynolds.

Its misleading paragraphs read:

News of the arrest comes after police seized a shipment of 800 shotguns moving from Turkey to Belgium, two countries linked to recent Islamic State-inspired terror plots, sparking fears weapons are continuing to be smuggled across Europe.

A huge manhunt is continuing in Belgium to find several terrorists who are linked to co-ordinated shootings and bombings in Paris earlier this month.

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.

Colin Jenkins, a member of the licensed firearms community, complained to IPSO saying there was no evidence to support the article’s assertion that the shotguns – which appeared to be being legally shipped from Turkey to Belgium and the Netherlands, despite the driver’s reported paperwork irregularities – were destined for Islamic State terrorists.

The full story, as reported by many other respectable news outlets, was very different from the version the Express presented.

Globally respected newswire Reuters reported the same story, a day before the Express. Its story said: “The finance police, who are often in charge of port security, said that while customs rules had not been violated, the Turkish truck driver did not have the licenses needed to transport the 781 Winchester SXP shotguns.

Reuters added, quoting a statement made by Italian customs: “Given the delicate nature of the cargo, its origin and its destination, the documentation regarding the rifles was immediately examined.”

That statement is freely available on the Italian customs service website in Italian. A Google Translate rendition of the page does not show any obvious or implicit link made by the Italians to the Islamic State, merely that the Dutch-registered truck’s Turkish driver didn’t have the correct licence to transport the 781 Winchester SXP pump-action shotguns.

IPSO’s Ciaran Cronin, however, in a letter sent to Mr Jenkins dismissing his complaint, said:

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.

UK Shooting News’ author, a working sub-editor with experience as chief sub and revise sub for a global technology news website, cannot see any way in which the Italian authorities’ statement linked the shipment to Islamic State. Put bluntly, there is no evidence to support the Express’ assertion that they “could” have ended up in IS’ hands, any more than a shipment of Qurans could.

When IPSO endorses such idiocy from my trade, blithely claiming that an outright falsehood is true when 10 minutes on Google shows otherwise, I despair. Any competent sub-editor knows that you trace your reporters’ assertions back to source when doing your fact-checking prior to publication, particularly if they’re summarising words said by a third party.

I struggle to see how the public will be convinced that IPSO is anything more than a fig-leaf for the press to continue getting it wrong on issues that readers care about if its level of investigation into complaints made is “the journalist wrote something that’s wrong but I can’t be bothered checking it properly and doing my job.”

Mr Jenkins also complained about the use of a stock photo of a SPAS-12 pump-action shotgun, instead of one of a Winchester SXP. This complaint was not upheld because IPSO felt the SPAS-12 was accurate enough to illustrate a story about a very similar but ultimately different product.

Advertisements

One thought on “Press regulator gets it wrong on Daily Express ‘ISIS guns’ story

  1. Sean Boyd

    Dear Mr Boyd,

    I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Paris massacre cops arrest German arms dealer, as 800 ‘ISIS weapons’ seized”, published by the Daily Express on 27 November 2015.

    On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive staff reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and represents a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.

    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.

    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.

    You said that Clause 1 had been breached because the article did not define what it meant by an “assault weapon”, which you said could be a gun, a knife or a spoon. The article reported “pump-action rifles are made for hunting and are not considered assault weapons”. We note that you not deny that it was accurate to report that pump-action rifles are not considered to be assault weapons and, as a result, we did not consider that the article was inaccurate or misleading. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.

    You also said that Clause 1 had been breached because it was inaccurate to report that pump-action shotguns were only made for hunting. You said that pump-action shotguns are used in law enforcement and military environments, but you do not dispute that they are also used for hunting. In such circumstances, we did not consider that the article was significantly misleading; as such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.

    You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.

    We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

    Best wishes,

    Ciaran Cronin

    Cc Daily Express

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s