ipso – 00283-26 Levick v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Adam Levick complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Families count cost of war between Iran and Israel”, published on 2 December 2025.
2. The article reported on the accounts from families who were affected by the 12-day Israel-Iran war of June 2025. It stated: “According to Tehran, more than 1,000 people were killed, about 700 of whom were civilians”.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format. This version of the article also reported that, in response to Israeli military action, “Iran responded with hundreds of missiles and drones aimed at Israel […] killing 28 Israelis and injuring several dozen more.”
4. The complainant said that the article inaccurately reported Iranian missiles and drones killed “28 Israelis and injuring several dozens more”, and in doing so breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. He said 32 Israelis had been killed and over 3,000 injured, according to the information published by the Israeli government on 13 October 2025. He was also concerned that the article did not mention that 31 of the 32 killed were civilians, while specifically referencing the number of Iranian civilians killed.
5. The complainant also said he was not aware of any source that could support the article’s claim that 700 Iranian civilians had been killed in the war. He said the Iranian state-run news agency did not give a breakdown between the military and civilian casualties.
6. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that Iranian missiles and drones had killed “28 Israelis and injuring several dozens more”. It said that, at the time of attacks, it had been widely reported that the death toll was 28, and provided an article from June 2025 to support its claim. It also said the source referenced by the complainant showed one of the 32 individuals died because of heart attack. At any rate, the publication did not consider the difference between the revised figure and the article’s figure significant.
7. The publication also said the Israeli health ministry reported that, out of those who were injured, 23 were seriously injured, 111 were moderately wounded, 2933 were lightly wounded, 138 were suffering anxiety and 30 did not have their conditions identified. The publication said where it reported “several dozen” injured, it was referring to the first two categories – those the publication believed would typically require hospital treatment by doctors. The publication considered this was a reasonable and common-sense distinction.
8. It was the publication’s position that the death toll of Iranian civilians came from the Iranian Ministry of Health and had been widely reported. The publication provided an article published by a Chinese news outlet in July 2025, which reported the Iranian Health Minister “has said close to 700 civilians were killed in Israeli attacks on Iran during June 13-24”. It further provided an article published by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which reported 1,190 were killed, out of which 436 were civilians, 435 were military personnel and 319 were unidentified. The publication also said its reporter extrapolated the number of civilians who had been killed from her observations at cemeteries, her conversations with eyewitnesses and her knowledge as a specialist in the region. The journalist considered those who were classified as “unidentified” were almost certain to be civilians, because – based on her experience – the Iranian regime was quick to identify the deceased military personnel.
9. In response, the complainant said the publication failed to report the updated Israeli death toll which was available at the time of publication. He also considered that the publication’s distinction between those who were “moderately wounded” and “lightly wounded” was completely arbitrary, given the Israeli government had said that 3343 people had been treated at hospitals following the attacks.
10. The complainant also considered the publication’s claim that the “unidentified” individuals were almost certain to be civilians to be speculative. He believed the Iranian regime had a public relations interest in inflating the civilian death toll, and referred to the HRANA article, which stated that “official tallies often exclude military casualties” and that casualty figures were “filtered through political considerations before release”.
Relevant Clause Provisions
1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
11. The Committee first considered the accuracy of the reported Israeli death toll, which appeared in the online version of the article under complaint. While the Committee noted the publication said the death toll was widely reported to be 28 at the time of the attacks, the complainant had provided an updated official figure. This had been released two months ahead of the article’s publication, and therefore would have been available to the publication at the time it was preparing its article. The Committee considered that, to ensure the accuracy of its coverage, the publication should have taken care to report the most recently available death toll, rather than relying on previous coverage. Where the publication had failed to do so, the Committee considered there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).
12. The Committee considered that it was important that, wherever possible, newspapers accurately report on casualties in deadly conflicts. While in some cases, it may be difficult to do so, in this case there was a clear official death toll for the number of civilian deaths – 32 – and inaccurately reporting the death toll represented significantly inaccurate information. The newspaper was therefore required to correct the significantly inaccurate information under Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’ Code; where it had not done so, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
13. The Committee next considered whether it was accurate to report, in the online version of the article, that “several dozens” of Israelis were injured. The Committee noted the publication considered those who were seriously injured and moderately wounded – adding up to 134 individuals – typically required hospital treatment. However, it noted the official data provided by Israeli government had referred to “3,343 people [who] arrived and were treated at hospitals”. Therefore, the Committee considered that the newspaper had not accurately reported on the numbers of those who were injured, by not making clear that its reporting was only referring to those who had been ‘seriously injured’ and ‘moderately wounded’. This represented a further failure to take care, and a breach of Clause 1 (i).
14. The Committee considered that the inaccuracy had the effect of understating the extent of injuries caused by the attacks, in a manner that rendered the article significantly misleading. The Committee therefore considered the inaccuracy was significant in need of correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Where a correction was not offered or published, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.
15. While the complainant was concerned that the article omitted to mention 31 of the 32 Israelis killed were civilians, newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
16. While the complainant was concerned about the publication’s claim that 700 Iranian civilians were killed, the Committee first noted the article attributed this figure to the Iranian government by including the phrase “[a]ccording to Tehran”. The publication had also provided an article reporting the Iranian Health Minister claimed close to 700 civilians were killed, and another article by HRANA that set out 436 civilians and 319 unidentified individuals were killed.
17. The Committee appreciated the complainant disputed the publication’s classification of the unidentified individuals as civilians. However, the Committee considered the journalist was entitled to extrapolate the civilian death tolls based on her first-hand experience at the scene, particularly given this extrapolation was supported by another source. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
18. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).
Remedial action required
19. Having partly upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
20. The online version of the article reported, in a significantly inaccurate manner, that Iranian missiles and drones killed 28 Israelis and injured several dozen more. In fact, 32 deaths had been linked to the missiles and the number of injuries was in fact 3,343 according to the official information published by Israeli government.
21. While the inaccurate information was significant, the Committee noted acknowledged the difficulty of reporting on the casualties in global conflicts. While there had been a failure to take care, and this had led to the publication of significantly inaccurate information, the publication had some factual basis for its claims – albeit these were outdated and summarised in a manner which rendered the article misleading. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge it was inaccurate to report Iranian missiles and drones injured several dozen Israelis and killed 28 more. It should also put the correct position on record, that the official number of Israeli injuries was 3,343 and the death toll was 32.
22. The Committee then considered the placement of the correction.
23. As the inaccurate information only appeared in the online version of the article, the correction should also appear online. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article beneath the headline. If the article is amended to remove the inaccurate information, the correction may be published as a footnote. The Committee considered this a sufficiently prominent location, where the inaccurate information appeared only ion the text of the article.
24. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.