Nightjar posted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46735713

A prime example of what the IPSO said the Telegraph had done:

'construed the polls as signalling support for a no deal, when in fact,
this was the result of the publication either amalgamating several
findings together or interpreting an option beyond what was set out by
the poll, as being a finding in support of a no-deal Brexit'

That is a poll of whether or not people support May's deal. It is not a
poll of whether or not they support a no-deal Brexit. It shows that the
deal is even more unpopular among remain voters than among leave
voters. That suggests that a more accurate claim (if there is such a
thing from a poll that doesn't actually ask the question) it would be
that remaining is a more popular alternative to her deal than a no-deal
Brexit.

That's the sort of fudging and interpreting and abbreviating that is
done all the time in political reporting, especially where numbers are
concerned. One could find a dozen examples of such "misreporting" every
day. So why are IPSO so keen to jump on this tiny example? Two guesses.

--
Evremonde