· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00735-15 Armstrong v Metro
Summary of
complaint
1. Paul Armstrong complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation on behalf of James Armstrong that the Metro had breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment), and Clause 5
(Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Cancer victim Ellie, 14, was ‘nicest and happiest girl’”, published
on 21 January 2015.
2. The complainant’s niece, Ellie Armstrong, died on 18
January 2015. This article was based on copy by a news agency, and was
published in a number of media outlets. It reported that Ellie Armstrong had
died of cancer, and that Cameron Armstrong, her brother, had revealed on
Twitter that he had been diagnosed with the disease. It was largely based on information
from social media. This included information from Ellie’s Facebook page, and
expressions of condolences from her classmates. It also reported on charity
fundraising the complainant had undertaken while Ellie was ill. The complainant
was complaining on behalf of James Armstrong, the father of Ellie and her
brother Cameron.
3. The complainant said that this article was researched
and published in a manner which intruded into the grief of the Armstrong
family. He was concerned that it was based on information taken from social
media, and said that it contained inaccuracies as to the nature of Ellie’s
treatment. He said that approaches by the reporter to members of his family
constituted harassment.
4. The complainant said that the reporter made three
calls to a hair salon owned by the complainant’s wife, Angela Armstrong, on 20
January. Two of these calls were in the morning, prior to publication of a
version of the article, and the third was at 2pm, after publication. James
Armstrong contacted the reporter at around 1pm after a version of the article
appeared online, and he had been made aware that she was pursuing the story.
The complainant said that Mr Armstrong asked the reporter to stop pursuing the
story, and asked her not to contact the family, who wanted privacy to grieve
for their daughter. The complainant said that he was at this time making
Ellie’s funeral arrangements. The reporter did not agree to stop pursuing the
story, and Mr Armstrong ended the call abruptly. The complainant said that
the reporter then made the third call to the salon, and told the employee who
answered that she had spoken to Mr Armstrong, and asked if she could clarify
some information he had given her. The complainant said that this was
deceitful; it gave the impression that Mr Armstrong had consented to the story.
He said that the third call to the salon, after Mr Armstrong had asked the
reporter not to contact the family, was harassment under the terms of Clause 4
(Harassment).
5. Mr Armstrong also spoke to the news agency’s editor
later in the afternoon. He asked him not to continue with the story and told
him that it contained inaccuracies, and said that its publication would be
distressing for the family. The editor said that the agency would be proceeding
with the story, but that he would amend any inaccuracies. The complainant said
that the decision to proceed with the story without the family’s consent was
insensitive and intrusive where only two days had passed since Ellie’s
death, and while her brother was very ill in hospital.
6. The article said that Ellie was “understood” to have
received treatment abroad, and that “it is believed” that her treatment had
been going on for “well over” a year. The complainant said that both these
claims were inaccurate; Ellie’s treatment lasted for the 10 months before her
death, and she had not received treatment for the cancer abroad.
7. The complainant was concerned that the article
contained information that Ellie had posted on social media. He said that she
was a 14 year old who would not have realised that this information could be
used in this way. In relation to reporting Cameron’s comments on social media,
the complainant said that there was a difference between disclosing information
on an account for friends and family to read, and the same information being
included in a newspaper article to which you did not consent.
8. The newspaper said that the article was based on a
report from a news agency, and that the newspaper used it in good faith.
The newspaper said that it was not aware that the publication of the article
would be unwelcome when it was published. The newspaper said that the article
was a short and entirely sympathetic item about Ellie’s death, told from the
viewpoint of her school friends. It accepted that the article was based on
information from social media, but it said that a great many people use social
media to communicate, and that it was reasonable for journalists to use
material from publically available social media pages.
9. The newspaper said that the agency reporter first
called the business owned by Ellie’s aunt after seeing a donation on the
complainant’s Just Giving page, in which he was raising money for a cancer
charity for Ellie. The donation page noted that it was from the clients and
staff of a hair salon, and that it had been made by “A Armstrong”. The
reporter spoke to someone who worked at the salon, who agreed to pass on her
number to the family. She called back an hour later to ask if her number had
been passed on, and to see if anyone at the salon was willing to talk to her
about what had happened. She was told by the employee that the number had been
passed on, but that she didn’t think anyone at the business would want to
comment. A version of the article was then published online. She then received
a call from Mr Armstrong, who told her that the story contained inaccuracies,
but provided no further detail. Mr Armstrong ended the phone call before she
had a chance to explain anything further. There was no request that she should
leave the family alone. Following this call, she called the salon for a
third time, to enquire whether anyone at the salon would be willing to clarify
what the inaccuracies were. She did not try to suggest that the family had
consented to the story. The person the journalist spoke to said that she did
not want to help, and asked that she did not call them again. Later that
evening, Mr Armstrong contacted the editor of the news agency. He told him that
there were inaccuracies in the story, but did not specify what they were.
10. The newspaper explained that the inaccuracies about
Ellie’s treatment for cancer had come about because her brother had made it
known that she had been flown to Germany for ongoing treatment. It said that
where information could not be verified from more than one source, it had been
prefaced with “it is believed…”. It denied that the inaccuracies were
significant, but offered to correct and apologise for the inaccuracies in the
article on page 2 of the Scottish edition of the newspaper. It also offered to
publish an apology explaining that Ellie’s family have said that the
newspaper’s approaches were unwelcome, and apologising for any additional
distress caused as a result. The newspaper said that its Scottish editor was
prepared to write a private letter to Ellie’s parents.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. 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.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
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 4 (Harassment)
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation,
harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by
those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from
other sources.
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. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Committee expressed its condolences to the
Armstrong family for their loss. It understood that this complaint related to
events which took place at a very difficult time for the family.
13. Personal tragedy may be the subject of legitimate media
coverage, and the Committee noted that in this instance, the matter was already
being discussed in the public domain by members of the community in which Ellie
lived. While the Code requires that newspapers research and publish such
articles in a manner which is sensitive to the personal grief of those close to
the deceased, this does not create a requirement that the family must consent
to publication or an absolute prohibition on journalists approaching the family
for comment. The Committee fully recognised that Ellie’s family did not
at that time want the newspaper to report on her death, but this did not
provide grounds for establishing a breach of Clause 5. It was not
inappropriate for the reporter to ask the hair salon to pass on her contact details
to the immediate family, nor were the calls to the hair salon indiscreet, or
unsympathetic. In addition, the information taken from social media was
publicly available, and was not of a private or inappropriate nature. In these
circumstances, the inclusion of this material was not intrusive or insensitive.
These aspects of the complaint did not raise a breach of Clause 3 or Clause 5.
14. During the reporter’s second telephone call to the
salon, she was told by an employee that she did not think anyone at the salon
would want to comment, but she was not asked not to call the salon again. The
complainant said that following this contact, James Armstrong told the
journalist that she should not contact his family. In assessing whether there
was a breach of Clause 4 in relation to the journalist’s subsequent call to the
salon, the Committee took into account the full circumstances. While an
employee of the salon had previously said that they did not think anyone would
want to comment, the Committee noted the journalist’s explanation that she had
called the salon to seek clarification on the inaccuracies Mr Armstrong had
made her aware of. There was no indication that the third call was a further
attempt to contact Ellie’s parents or siblings. In these circumstances, the
Committee considered that the third call to the salon did not amount to
harassment under the terms of Clause 4.
15. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that
the article did not accurately report the nature of Ellie’s treatment. However,
it took the view that the exact duration of her treatment was not a significant
detail in the context of the article. Likewise, reporting that Ellie was
“understood to have received treatment abroad”, where in fact, this treatment
was in relation to a separate condition, was not significantly
misleading. As such, the Committee did not establish a breach of Clause
1.
Conclusions
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 16/02/2015
Date decision issued: 04/08/2015