The three most inaccurate claims were in the Independent, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail (this is an Istyosty link).

Full Fact came to the conclusion that about 457,000 children had been mis-diagnosed, not to belittle that number but it is significantly different to the 700,000 – 750,000 that these three papers claimed.

Mistakes happen. These reports are not usually the easiest things to read and interpret (for me at least). Given that an error in reporting of this size could influence any future debate about the subject (there has been some recent debates where SEN was raised), and being good public spirited citizens, Full Fact contacted the gang of three and explained where they had gone wrong with their figures.

I should mention that Full Fact, once they had done their adding and subtracting, went to Ofsted for clarification and to make sure they had infact got it right. Full Fact were correct in their workings and the figure of up to 750,000 children being mis-diagnosed with SEN is wrong, although Ofsted would only agree privately and not publicly. Ofsted only said anything publicly after a Parliamentary Question (.pdf) was asked.

By the time November had come round Full Fact had given…

…almost two months of concerted, polite effort on the part of Full Fact to remove inaccurate figures from the debate the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent still refuse to correct their stories. Indeed, the Independent and the Mail both repeated the claim. They say they will not correct except at the request of Ofsted themselves.

This is a clear breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which demands that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence…”

So, with the Mail, Independent and the Telegraph sticking to their mis-informed guns dispite clear accurate proof that their figures were seriously inflating an already serious number of SEN mis-diagnoses, off Full Fact went to the PCC.

Fast forward a month to December and Full Fact have another update. After initially refusing to get off it’s arse, due to those being directly involved, Ofsted, not making the complaint, the PCC accepted the complaint from Full Fact and the online articles have now been corrected and a note explaining why. Two out of the three articles have been corrected, at least.

The Independent and The Telegraph have both updated their articles but sadly the Daily Mail, being a true rebel, hasn’t.

The Daily Mail, in the face of the correct figures, Ofsted claiming publicly, albeit forced to, that the figures the mail has used in it’s story are incorrect and the PCC telling it it is wrong and should issue a correction, is still sticking with the wrong numbers. Full Fact explain why…

However the Mail’s response to the PCC argued that based on the information in the report and the press briefing, the figure was valid – and made only more so by the use of qualifiers such as “up to”.

We feel that even if the use of the higher figure was reasonable based on the briefing, this is no grounds not to correct the story in light of the later clarification.

Exactly. Fine, the Mail came to the wrong conclusion like others did, but why, when new information comes to light, shouldn’t it update/correct itself? Answers on a postcard please, to Northcliffe House, London.

On July 22^nd I wrote a small blog entry on my website about a dodgy article in the Daily Mail about children with special educational needs.

In my entry I asked: “[a]t what point do we suppose the Daily Mail not only dislikes the inclusion of young people with special educational needs in schools, but doesn’t think special educational needs exist outside of the 2% once designated before the Warnock report of 1978.”

Of course the article in the Mail doesn’t explicitly say there is no such things as Special Needs because in doing this, not only would they be wrong (this shouldn’t phase them too much), they’d open up the grounds for a whole campaign and would alienate a large amount of people (even if those people are Mail readers).

The Mail article stated that “it has also been claimed” that doctors, teachers and parents are too keen to pin medical labels – such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – on “what might previously have been branded poor discipline”.

It then quoted Dr Gwynedd Lloyd, an education researcher at the University of Edinburgh, who said:

You can’t do a blood test to check whether you’ve got ADHD – it’s diagnosed through a behavioural checklist. Getting out of your seat and running about is an example – half the kids in a school could qualify under that criterion.

My charge is obviously against the unsourced article where the Mail, instead of making a claim themselves, have claimed that “doctors, teachers and parents” attest to children being overbranded.

Then last week a comment appeared below my entry by Dr Lloyd herself telling me that:

The daily mail used a quote from me, without my permission, from another article that took a different approach. My argument is not that ADHD doesn’t exist, it is that we are clustering together lots of difficult and challenging behaviour under one rather simple diagnosis and then using stimulant medication. Of course such children need additional support in school and should get it. The daily mail used my quote out of context to support their argument against inclusion. I disagree completely with their conclusions!

Of course! The Mail don’t make claims themselves, they use claims by other people in order to hide what they really think, but even better than that, they use quotes from people who don’t even agree with the charge they are hiding behind.

I contacted Dr Lloyd through her work email to verify whether it was really her who had left the comment. After confirming this she told me that she was:

really fed up with the Daily Mail using this bit of a quote. The original was in the Guardian and has since appeared without context (and to support opinions I dislike) twice in the Mail and one in the Telegraph. – so not just the tabloids!

So let it be known, the Mail (and the Telegraph) will use quotes out of turn, without permission, to write ill-thought commentary on subjects they find contentious. Why people continue using this rag for information is well beyond me.