Decision of the Complaints Committee 00278-15, Pearson v Daily Star
1. Linda Pearson
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star
had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Too
fat to wash! Grubby gran who weighed 27 stone didn’t have a bath for 20 years”,
published online only on 16 January 2015.
2. The article
was based on an interview given by the complainant to a press agency and
reported that the complainant had lost 16 stone.
3. The
complainant said the article’s headline had been inaccurate, intrusive and
discriminatory. While she had not bathed for 20 years, she had washed; she was
not “grubby”. The newspaper had wrongly reported that she had visited a private
surgery, and a caption had incorrectly stated that she had a gastric band
fitted; rather, she had undergone a gastric bypass. The article had also
intruded into her grandson’s private life: he had been taunted as a result of
it and had missed school.
4. The newspaper
accepted that the article’s headline had been inaccurate and it apologised for
the distress this had caused. It had amended the article within hours of
publication and it published the following apology on its homepage and
alongside the online article:
“Linda Pearson
In our article
“Too fat to wash” published on 16 January 2015 we said that Linda Pearson had
not had a bath for 20 years because she was too fat and had not therefore
washed. This is of course untrue and we apologise to Mrs Pearson for any hurt
and distress the article may have caused.”
5. The newspaper
also accepted that the complainant had not had a gastric band fitted and had
not visited a private clinic. It offered to amend the online article
accordingly and to append the following note:
“This article
was amended on 29 January 2015. An earlier version of the article stated that
Mrs Pearson had a gastric band and that she had approached a private clinic in
respect of seeking treatment. Mrs Pearson has advised us that she did not
attend a private clinic and actually underwent a gastric bypass rather than
having a gastric band fitted, the article was amended to reflect this.”
6. The newspaper
did not accept that the remaining issues raised a breach of the Code. While it
was sorry that the complainant’s grandson had been bullied, the piece had not
named him and so it had not intruded into his private life in breach of Clause
3. Obesity was not a physical disability therefore there was no breach of
Clause 12.
7. The
complainant said the newspaper had published the online apology without her
agreement. While the headline had been corrected promptly, the damage had been
done, and other online publications, including a local newspaper, had already
republished it. She requested compensation.
Relevant Code
Provisions
8. Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The Press
must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information,
including pictures.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must
be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an
apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be
agreed with the Regulator in advance.
Clause 3
(Privacy)
i) Everyone is
entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and
correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will
be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without
consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information.
Clause 12
(Discrimination)
i) The press
must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour,
religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or
disability.
ii) Details of
an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental
illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of
the Committee
9. The article’s
headline had substantially misrepresented information provided by the
complainant in the interview: at no point had the complainant said she had not
washed for 20 years. This represented a clear failure by the newspaper to take
care not to publish inaccurate information, which had caused significant
distress to the complainant and her family. This aspect of the complaint under
Clause 1 (i) was upheld.
10. Given that
this was a serious and avoidable error that had the clear potential to cause
distress to the complainant, a correction and an apology were required to meet
the terms of Clause 1 (ii). When the newspaper was alerted to the error, it had
corrected it promptly and it had published a correction, which included an
apology, on its homepage and alongside the article. The Committee considered
that this met the requirement of Clause 1 (ii) and there had therefore been no
further breach in this regard.
11. The
Committee did not consider that whether the complainant had been fitted with a
gastric band or had undergone a gastric bypass was a significant point. These
were both types of weight-loss surgery, which involved reducing the amount a
stomach can hold. Whether the complainant had visited a private clinic was also
not significant in the context of a story that focused on the complainant’s
weight loss. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points. However, the
Committee welcomed the fact the online article had been revised and a
clarification appended due to the complainant’s concerns.
12. With regard
to the complaint under Clause 3, the Committee noted that the complainant had
disclosed her story to a news agency and had agreed to it being published.
Although the publication of inaccurate information had, regrettably, affected
her personal life and that of her grandson, this did not represent a breach of
Clause 3.
13. Finally, the
Committee considered the complainant’s concern that the article had been
discriminatory in breach of Clause 12. While it sympathised with the
complainant’s position that the inaccurate headline had been derogatory, the
description of her as “fat” did not amount to a pejorative or discriminatory
reference to a physical or mental illness or disability that would engage the
terms of Clause 12.
Conclusions
14. The
complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial
Action Required
15. Having
partially upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action
should be required. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a
correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and placement is to be determined
by IPSO. It may inform the publication that further remedial action is required
to ensure that the requirements of the Editors’ Code are met.
16. The article was corrected by the newspaper as soon as it was alerted to the error. It also published a correction, which identified the inaccuracy and made clear the true position, and which had included a suitable apology. As the article had originally appeared on the newspaper’s homepage, the publication of the correction on the home page and alongside the article was appropriate. No further action was required.
Date complaint
received: 19/01/2015
Date decision
issued: 26/03/2015