IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation) has ruled there was no breach of the editor's code in a Mail on Sunday piece of 20 August 2022, titled "Red light rats!", about cyclists jumping red lights outside Buckingham Palace.
IPSO deemed there was no breach of Clause 1, relating to accuracy, which states:
The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
The complaint related to the idea, shared on Twitter, that the road had been closed to motor vehicles at the time and police had been present telling riders to continue. They also questioned the use of a composite photo which meant it may unable to confirm if any cyclists pictured had jumped a red light. The complainant also suggested the article was an attempt to create "road rage" towards cyclists, compounded by calling them "rats".
However, IPSO's committee deemed:
The newspaper had demonstrated that its journalist and photographer had been present at the scene, and taken the photographs used to create the composite picture. The photos showed that cars and vans in both directions were stopped at the traffic lights while the green man was on or while the adjacent digital display showed a countdown, indicating that they were stopped at a red light. The photos also showed a number of cyclists passing through the crossing while the green man was on, while pedestrians were crossing and while the cars remained stationary.
And...
In addition, the publication had said that there had been no police present and the road had been functioning as normal – which again was supported by the pictures it had provided. The Committee also noted that the complainant had not been present at the scene and was speculating that the road had been closed based on information from social media. Taking all this into consideration, it was the Committee’s view that the publication had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and it was not inaccurate or misleading to claim that the cyclists had "ignored the traffic signal" and "jump[ed] a red light".
On the "rats" front...
The Committee also noted the complainant’s concerns regarding the phrase "rats" and that he considered this was an attempt to create anger towards cyclists. The Committee noted that the Editors' Code of Practice makes clear the press has the right to be partisan, to give its own opinion and to publish individuals’ views, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. In this instance, the description of the cyclists as "rats" was clearly the opinion of the newspaper, and clearly attributed to it. Further, this was a subjective characterisation, and while the Committee noted the complainant disagreed with this description, this did not in itself mean that the article was inaccurate or misleading to include it.
The full ruling can be read here...