The IPSO rejected the newspaper’s defence that this was made clear in the full article when users clicked through. The decision highlights the risk of free-standing headlines and images that trade accuracy for impact.
Mail Online’s mobile home page published the headline “Knifed at random” accompanied by a collage of three photographs. The largest photograph was of a man’s face, while the other images were smaller and included a pixellated image of man being led away by police. The text below read “Leicester Square ‘knifeman’ who stabbed mother and daughter, 11, did not know them, police believed”. Users could then click through to read the full article in the usual fashion.
The IPSO found that the composite image and accompanying text on the home page gave the “misleading impression” that the man pictured prominently was the perpetrator of the attack. In fact, he was a security guard who had intervened and was hailed as a ‘hero’.
The publication argued that this was clarified in the text of the article itself, but the IPSO did not accept this as “the connection between the man pictured and the story was not explained on the [home] page.” A caption had originally been present, but it was removed when the photograph was enlarged “for editorial emphasis”.
The IPSO stated: “While the article to which readers could click through went on to identity the security guard and his relationship to events, this was not sufficient to rectify the misleading impression given by the homepage.”
Mail Online was required to publish a correction.
This complaint serves as a reminder that the press has a duty to take care with its online front pages, which now frequently combine images and headlines, by including any important context.
The ruling can be found here.
His practice covers privacy, defamation, data protection, confidentiality and other information laws and litigation. He advises individuals and corporations on the publication of material in any format, whether by newspapers, online, social media or television and film.