· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00580-15 Owens v That’s Life
Summary of
complaint
1. Leanne Owens complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that That’s Life had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “I’d rather die than kill
my baby”, published on 16 October 2014.
2. The article was a first-person account of the serious
illnesses the complainant had experienced while pregnant with her fourth child.
It reported that she had risked her own life to give birth to a baby girl, and
by extension had risked leaving her other children without a mother.
3. The complainant said that she had not risked her life
by continuing with her pregnancy: she had been told that with treatment and
monitoring she would survive, but her baby might not. She said that she had
been telephoned by a journalist working for the magazine who had read the
proposed article to her for approval, but she had repeatedly told the
journalist that she was in a doctor’s surgery and could not hear her clearly.
The complainant said that she had promised to call the journalist back at a
more convenient time for her, but on three occasions she had been told that the
journalist was unavailable and left a message; she never received a return
call. The complainant said that this breached Clause 2. The complainant raised
a number of other concerns about inaccuracies, but these were not significant
so as to engage the Code.
4. With regard to Clause 5, the complainant said that she
had been “tricked” into including her eldest son in the photographs, when she
did not want him to appear in the magazine, and that she had not been advised
of the publication date in advance.
5. The magazine believed that its article was an accurate
account of the complainant’s difficulties during her pregnancy. It said that
the journalist who had completed the read-back (telephone call in which the
proposed copy is read to the subject of the story, to give them an opportunity
to raise concerns) did not recall the complainant saying that she was unable to
hear her properly; the magazine believed that the copy had been approved by the
complainant. It did not have a recording of the read-back, and while it said
that it had a text version of it, the journalist had not signed or dated it,
and no changes had been recorded. The magazine said that the complainant had
initially sold her story to a news agency, and the published copy was true to
the copy provided by the agency, which had also been approved by the
complainant in a read-back process, although again the agency did not have a
recording of this read-back. The magazine had completed its own interview with
the complainant - in addition to the agency’s interview - and it provided the
relevant notes, although those notes did not contain a reference to the
complainant having placed her life in danger. The magazine maintained that it
had made every effort to publish a feature with which the complainant was
happy: it had removed her surname and address, upon request, and changed the
name of her partner.
6. The magazine said that it had contacted the freelance
photographer who had taken the photographs for the feature, and he had
confirmed that he had not been asked to remove the complainant’s eldest son
from the images. The photographer said that when there is a request not to
include a person, it is his usual practice to pixelate the image prior to
distributing it, so that there can be no misunderstanding.
7. While the magazine maintained that there had been no
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, it offered to publish
the following correction on the letters page (last page), which was its
standard placement for corrections:
Last year we told the story of Leanne Owens whose unborn
baby girl Seren helped to identify her breast cancer while she was pregnant.
Leanne has asked us to make clear that when she was originally offered the
chance to terminate the pregnancy, due to antiphospholipid syndrome, the
doctors did not tell her that her life was at risk. In fact it was her unborn
baby whose life was at risk. As such Leanne never felt that she risked leaving
her sons without a mother when she decided to go ahead with the pregnancy. We
are happy to make this clear and apologise for any distress caused by this
misunderstanding.
8. The complainant did not think that the magazine’s
apology was genuine.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries
and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively.
Findings of the Committee
10. It is of particular importance that a first-person
piece is an accurate reflection of the experiences of the subject of the
article, under whose name it is published. A read-back is a way of complying
with the requirements of Clause 1 (i) for first-person stories, but only if
there is a proper record of it having been completed satisfactorily. In this
instance, the complainant disputed the magazine’s position that she had agreed
the accuracy of the material. In the absence of any record that she was content
with the copy which was being attributed to her, the Committee was not able to
place any reliance on the read-back. While the Committee recognised that the
magazine had been able to provide notes of its own interview with the
complainant, these notes did not include the claim that the complainant had
risked leaving her sons motherless by proceeding with her last pregnancy. The
Committee did not find that the magazine had taken appropriate care over the
accuracy of the article; it upheld the complaint under Clause 1 (i).
11. The inaccuracy alleged by the complainant was
significant, and the magazine was not able to show that the complainant’s own
life had been put in danger. In the circumstances, a correction was required on
this point in order to satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.
12. Clause 2 provides for an opportunity to reply to
inaccuracies, post-publication. As the complainant had not requested an
opportunity to reply following publication of the article, there was no breach
of Clause 2.
13. Given that the photograph of the complainant’s
children, which included her eldest son, was posed for, the Committee was
satisfied that it had been reasonable for the magazine to understand that the
complainant had consented to its publication. In any case, this concern did not
engage the terms of Clause 5. The magazine was also not obliged to inform the
complainant of the publication date of the feature in advance. There was no
breach of Clause 5.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).
Remedial Action Required
15. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, 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 also inform
the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the
requirements of the Editors’ Code are met.
16. The magazine had already offered to publish a correction
which stated that the complainant’s life had not been put in danger by
continuing with her pregnancy. This correction included an apology which, given
the nature of the inaccuracy, was required on this occasion. However, given
that the inaccuracy was referenced on the front cover of the magazine, the
prominence proposed by the magazine was not sufficient under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii). In order to remedy the breach of Clause 1, the magazine is now
required to publish its proposed wording, in full, on the first editorial page.
Date complaint received: 9/02/2015
Date complaint concluded: 26/06/2015