OK, because I am now officially a curmudgeonly old git, I’ve started reading news articles more carefully. Which led me to make an IPSO complaint, as I am fed up with the continual deception and misleading articles in the news media. For your delectation here are a couple I found particularly egregious and felt the need to complain. Remember we will all get old and we will probably all have to own an electric car, enjoy:
**To:**inquiries@ipso.co.uk
Fri, 17 Jun at 12:53
I wish to complain about 2 articles in the express I consider breaks the editors’ code clause 1. Accuracy.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1624868/ev-charging-31-hour-wait-leeds
This article makes misleading claims that would lead people to think extended public charging times exist in this and other cities. The specific problems are:
The headline subheading reinforces the misleading claim
the second paragraph further reinforces the incorrect and misleading claim
It’s based on a study done by a car leasing company (of predominantly or wholly non electric vehicles), hence a conflict of interest in providing accurate, non misleading study. https://carleasespecialoffers.co.uk/
The entire article and wait times are actually based on to completely unreasonable assumptions
Why this matters: The law regarding Petrol and Diesel field cars is changing, this article has the potential to incorrectly and heavily influence the decision motorists are increasingly having to make on their next vehicle. It has the potential for a significant financial impact on those decisions and may delay the adoption of those technologies.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1624664/elderly-drivers-road-traffic-collision-failed-look-crash-studyThis article makes misleading claims and contains inaccurate information about the risk factors for elderly drivers. Namely elderly drivers cause more accidents than younger drivers as they fail to look properly.
The headline subheading reinforces the misleading claim and in facts states “half” even based on other statements later that say 4 out of 10
The second paragraph relating to the PA study could be easily read as 4 out of 10 elderly people don’t look properly. This doesn’t take into account those involved in a collision that was not their fault, it is not grouped by age so there is no valid definition of “elderly” except to say over 70. This data could be massively skewed by drivers aged over 85! In needed to be in the context of age groupings 70,75 80 85
“The analysis of the DfT data showed that the mistake contributes to 42.6 percent of collisions involving drivers over the age of 70. The figure stands at 35.7 percent for all other ages.” This statement illustrates the extent of the deception, as by not setting an upper age limit to the study and just saying over 70…all drivers over 70 are only going to have an increased risk factor of “failing to look properly” of 7%, not the 42.6% implied. e.g. out of all the drivers under 70 if 100 had an accident 35.7 drivers would have not looked properly as opposed to 7 drivers more over 70
Such a clear difference at 70 is unlikely, but again the implication is at 70 than number jumps by 7, this is extremely unlikely
It neglects to mention that the vast majority of accidents of all types involve younger drivers, giving the clear impression elderly drivers are more likely to have an accident. “The research added that elderly drivers are more likely to cause a crash”. This statement is blatantly untrue, even correcting for miles driven.
Why this matters: Insurance rates, elderly driver confidence, perception of elderly drivers by other road users are all negatively affected. The article could easily encourage age discrimination and aggressive behaviour of other road users to elderly drivers. All of this based on a distortion of the data and an omission of the true accident statistics.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have further questions about either article
