Complaint
The ECU received three separate complaints about three versions of a 鶹Լ News Online article about an investigation by the Organizaton for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into an alleged chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma. Each complaint challenged the accuracy of the headline of the relevant version, and one challenged the accuracy of the text.
Outcome
The ECU agreed that the headlines were inaccurate, as follows.
Version 1: Syria war: Douma attack was chlorine gas – watchdog
The OPCW reported that chlorinated chemicals were found at the site but expressed no view as to how they got there.
Version 2:Syria war: ‘Possible chlorine’ at Douma attack site – watchdog
The OPCW concluded that chlorinated chemicals were present at the site, not that their presence was a possibility. Any element of doubt related to whether they were there as a result of a chemical attack.
Version 3:Syria war: Chlorine possible at Douma ‘attack’ site – OPCW
The rewording of the headline failed to correct the impression that the OPCW had found that the presence of chlorinated chemicals was no more than a possibility.
However, the ECU did not agree with the suggestion that the error in the headline of version 2 was repeated in the text of the article. The sentence in question was “A chemical weapons watchdog says chlorine may have been used in April’s attack on the Syrian city of Douma” and, while the OPCW report contained no specific statement to that effect, the significance of its finding that chlorinated chemicals were present at the site was that it kept open the possibility that they had been used in the attack.
Upheld/partly upheld/upheld
Further action
The findings have been discussed with senior editors at the 鶹Լ News website, who have been reminded of the importance of accuracy at all times, and of ensuring any inaccuracies are effectively corrected.