The Guardian condemned for ‘misleading’ headline

The Guardian broke a sensitive area of reporting in relation to the headline of an article on the death of Mark Duggan, the newspaper’s Reader’s Editor has admitted following serious condemnation by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Chris Elliott, writing in a blog for The Guardian this week, said there was not “sufficient information” to deliver a story about the shooting of Mr Duggan, in which it was reported that there was no forensic evidence indicating Mr Duggan was carrying a gun when he was shot by officers. The newspaper subsequently printed a headline stating ‘Mark Duggan was not armed when shot by police’.

However, both the MPS and the IPCC criticised this as “misleading”.

Mr Elliott acknowledged that the paper took too long to amend headlines that were not supported by the text of the article.

He wrote: “Headlines and subheadings are there to attract and lead a reader into a story, but they should never mislead about what is in the text. The Guardian broke that rule in an acutely sensitive area of reporting about the investigation into the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police on August 4, 2011, triggered riots in London and across the rest of England.”

He added: “One of the dangers for news editors is that reporters believe they will have sufficient information to deliver a story in a particular form but when it comes to deadline it doesn’t measure up quite in that way. One of the serious failings on this occasion is that this distinction was not made by The Guardian. There have been no complaints about the story – the serious concern is about the headings.”

Last week, the MPS reported its concerns over the article to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) while the IPCC also criticised the “irresponsible” heading. The IPCC said further “inaccurate” reports will undermine the ongoing investigation.

Len Jackson, IPCC chair, said: “I am taking the highly unusual step of clarifying inaccurate, misleading and more importantly – irresponsible comment that has appeared in relation to the IPCC investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan. I am doing so because, if these inaccuracies continue to gain currency, they risk undermining the integrity of and public confidence in our investigation.”