· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00782-15 A man v East Kilbride News
Summary of
complaint
1. A man, acting with the consent of his mother, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
the East Kilbride News 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 “OAP appeals to council for repairs”,
published on 18 February 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant’s mother had
appealed to the council to finish repairs to her house and noted that in the
meantime she had been staying in her late son’s bedroom. It reported that she
had said that her late son had Down’s syndrome.
3. The complainant said his late brother, had multiple disabilities, including cerebral palsy, but he had not
had Down’s syndrome. Their mother had told him that she had not made reference
to this condition during her conversation with the reporter. The complainant
had raised his concerns with the newspaper directly, but it had not offered to
publish a correction.
4. The complainant said the inaccuracy had caused
distress because his mother had fought for the nature of his brother’s
condition to be recognised by professionals. During the IPSO investigation, the complainant's mother provided an account of her interview with the reporter, stating that
she had not said the words “Down’s syndrome” during the interview.
5. The newspaper said it had published in good faith
information provided by the complainant's mother during the interview. It stood by the
reporter’s account of the conversation and supplied notes taken during the
interview, which indicated that the mother had said “I had to go into the back
bedroom and I get upset in it as my son died with Down’s syndrome and I didn’t
want to go into the room”. Given the reporter’s position and the notes, the
newspaper did not consider that it was appropriate for it to issue an apology.
However, after receiving confirmation from the complainant's mother personally that she
denied having referred to Down’s syndrome, it offered to publish the following
clarification on page two of a future edition:
"An article which appeared in the East Kilbride News on
February 18, 2015, under the headline ‘OAP appeals to council for repairs’ said
that the complainant's late brother had suffered from Down’s syndrome. In fact he suffered
from cerebral palsy. We are happy to clarify this."
6. The complainant said the suggested correction was
unacceptable because the offer was too late, and the newspaper had not accepted
responsibility for the error.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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 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. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
Findings of the Committee
8. The reference to Down’s syndrome had formed part of a
quotation attributed to the complainant's mother. The newspaper had provided contemporaneous
notes taken by the reporter, which it had relied upon in reporting the complainant's mother’s comments. While noting that the mother continued to dispute the
accuracy of the notes, the Committee found that they demonstrated that there
had been no failure to take care over the accuracy of the report. There was no
breach of Clause 1 (i).
9. Nonetheless, it was accepted that the complainant's brother did
not have Down’s syndrome. Although the Committee had established no failure by
the reporter, the incorrect reference to the later brother’s medical condition
represented a significant inaccuracy in the context of the story. It therefore
followed that a correction was required.
10. Clause 1 (ii) states that “a significant inaccuracy…
once recognised must be corrected, promptly”. When the complainant's mother confirmed her
position to IPSO in writing, the newspaper had offered to publish a correction.
However, this was some seven weeks after it had first been made aware of the
complainant’s concerns, in his telephone call to the newspaper.
11. The Committee was therefore required to identify the
time at which the inaccuracy had been “recognised”. It noted that “recognition”
cannot simply rely on the newspaper’s acceptance of an inaccuracy; in order for
the requirements of Clause 1(ii) to be meaningful, “recognition” must refer to
the time at which the publication ought reasonably to have realised that an
inaccuracy required correction. It concluded that because of the nature of the
inaccuracy about the complainant's brother’s medical information – which the newspaper
was unlikely to be in a position to contest – and the fact that the newspaper
had not when alerted (or at any other time) questioned whether an inaccuracy
had been published about his condition, “recognition” had occurred at the time
the newspaper was first alerted to the matter.
12. As such, although the Committee was satisfied that
the wording sufficiently addressed the inaccuracy, the newspaper had failed to
make the offer promptly and had breached Clause 1(ii).
13. The complainant had expressed concern that the
newspaper’s initial refusal to publish a correction had represented a breach of
Clause 2. Clause 2, however, affords individuals the opportunity to reply to
inaccuracies when reasonably called for. The complainant had requested a
correction, not an opportunity to reply. As such, there was no breach of Clause
2.
14. The terms of Clause 5 relate to the conduct of
journalists, and the sensitivity of articles, in cases involving grief or
shock. While the Committee understood that the inaccuracy had caused distress,
its publication did not represent a breach of Clause 5. The conduct of the
journalist had also not been inappropriate. The complaint under Clause 5 was
not upheld.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
17. In order to remedy the breach of the Code, the
newspaper should now publish the following adjudication on page nine, where the
original article appeared, or further forward. The headline must be agreed with
IPSO in advance. It should make clear that the complaint has been upheld by
IPSO and make reference to the subject matter.
A man, acting with the consent of his mother, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that the East Kilbride News had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “OAP appeals to council for repairs”,
published on 18 February 2015.
The article reported that, while waiting for repairs to
be made to her house, the complainant’s mother had been staying in her late
son’s bedroom, and quoted her as stating that her late son had Down’s syndrome.
The complainant said this was inaccurate: his brother had cerebral palsy, and
his mother had not misinformed the reporter about her son's condition. The
complainant alerted the newspaper to his concerns. However, the newspaper did
not recognise the article was inaccurate on the basis that it had the
reporter's notes as a record of the conversation and therefore maintained that
it had correctly reported what the complainant's mother had said. It did not offer to
publish a clarification on her son's condition until the mother had confirmed
her position in writing.
The Committee considered that the newspaper had failed to
correct a significant inaccuracy promptly. The complaint under Clause 1 was
upheld and IPSO required that the newspaper publish this adjudication.
Date complaint received: 19/02/2015
Date complaint concluded: 23/09/2015