Complaint
A reader complained that this article, in its original form, mischaracterised the first intifada as 鈥渘辞苍-惫颈辞濒别苍迟鈥 and 鈥渓argely unarmed鈥; that the absence of any description of the second intifada would have allowed readers to infer that it too had been non-violent; and that the article appeared to blame the second intifada solely on the actions of Ariel Sharon. The reader noted, but was not satisfied by, the changes subsequently made to the article. The ECU considered the complaint against the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of accuracy.
Outcome
The ECU could not find the descriptor 鈥渘on violent鈥 in any iteration of the article. In relation to 鈥渓argely unarmed鈥, the ECU noted that, while much of the protest of the first intifada was unarmed, it also included many deadly attacks, and agreed that 鈥渓argely unarmed鈥 gave a misleading impression in this context. In relation to the other points of complaint, the ECU did not agree that the absence of information about the second intifada would have led readers to suppose it was non-violent and considered it a matter of accepted fact that it had been sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to Temple Mount. In these respects the ECU found the article did not fall below the standard of accuracy to be expected in a brief summary of the wider background to the concerns which prompted the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police to make the announcements which were central to the story. It also found that the action taken by 91福利社 News in altering the article and adding an explanatory note was sufficient to remedy the breach of standards identified in the complaint.
Resolved