Blue Peter article not inaccurate enough to be inaccurate

The article about Blue Peter and its "zero viewers" on the Daily Mail website still incorrectly states that the Thursday evening edition of the show was shown with sign language and subtitles.  We have on 8 occasions sent an email via the Daily Mail form set up for reporting inaccuracies to tell them that the article is wrong but nothing has been changed.  So we contacted ther IPSO.  They have a code of Accuracy so surely something that is inaccurate must fall foul of that code right?

Sadly no!

Apparently the presence of this particiular incorrect fact does not affect the article and therefore is not deemed inaccurate enough to be er well wrong!  The fact that the whole article is based around the fact that the broadcast of the show that DID have sign language and subtitles on the Tuesday afternoon does not make any difference.

The reply we received was:

"The Committee recognised the importance that information about what television programmes are signed is important, to ensure that people with hearing difficulties can appropriately plan their watching. However, this case was about television broadcasts which had already taken place, and did not suggest that the use of sign language on the original broadcast had affected viewership of the programme.

For this reason, in addition to the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee considered that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code."

So it doesn't seem to matter that something in an article is wrong.  If it's not wrong enough it's deemed to still be accurate under the code of practice?  This seems to be what the IPSO is saying.

Two more attempts to get the article on the Daily Mail wevbsite changed have gone unanswered.  

Did someone once say don't believe what you read in the papers?  On this occasion they were right although it doesn't seem to matter to the organisation that supposed to be making sure everything is correct.