Decision of the Complaints Committee 00794-15 McMillan v Dumfries and Galloway Standard
Summary of complaint
1. Elaine McMillan complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Dumfries and Galloway Standard had breached Clause
1 (Accuracy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into Grief or Shock) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Dumfries woman is murdered in USA”,
published on 31 October 2014.
2. The article reported that Angela Laskey (referred to
as Angela McMillan in the article) – the complainant’s sister in law - had been
murdered in Santa Barbara, California. A journalist from the newspaper had
contacted the complainant by telephone the day before the article was
published. The sub-headline of the article stated that “Family ‘numb with
shock’”. The article went on to report that “Angela’s brother Paul and his wife
Elaine…said the news of her death had left the family ‘numb with shock’. Elaine
said: ‘…We are sitting by the phone waiting for news’”.
3. The complainant said that the telephone conversation
began with the journalist addressing her by her first name, and offering her
condolences; only then did the journalist introduce herself. She then told the
journalist that Ms Laskey’s name had not been released publicly, and enquired
as to how the journalist knew about her death. She told the journalist that the
newspaper should not report on Ms Laskey’s death until her name had been
officially released, at which point she would speak to the journalist.
4. The complainant said that when the journalist had asked
whether she and her husband were “numb with shock”, or if they “were sitting by
the phone waiting for news”, she responded “yes”; the article’s presentation of
these as direct quotations was therefore inaccurate. In circumstances where the
name had not been released, and only family and close friends were aware of the
death, she had not expected a call from a journalist, and it took her by
surprise. Had she been aware of the journalist’s identity immediately, she said
that she would not have said anything.
5. The newspaper said that the journalist introduced
herself immediately, and informed the complainant that she was telephoning in
relation to the death of Angela Laskey. It said that during the conversation
about Ms Laskey and her family, the journalist asked “Do you feel numb with
shock at what’s happened?”, to which the complainant responded “Yes. We are
sitting by the phone waiting for news”.
6. The newspaper said that it had received a tip-off from
a confidential source regarding her death, and had then contacted the Santa
Barbara Police Department, which had stated that Ms Laskey’s name had not been
officially released but confirmed that her family had been informed. The
newspaper then checked the complainant’s husband’s Facebook page, from which it
was clear that he was aware that Ms Laskey had died; it provided screen grabs
of the page as it had appeared at the time. It said that in these
circumstances, it decided that it was appropriate to approach the family. (The
complainant denied that the postings amounted to an acknowledgment of Ms
Laskey’s death.)
7. The newspaper offered to remove the complainant’s
quotations from the online article, but maintained that the manner in which
they had been presented was a traditional journalistic convention. It said that
as the complainant had accepted that the words were true, there was no breach
of the Code.
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.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
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
9. The Committee recognised that in transcribing spoken
remarks for print publication, it may be necessary to adapt a verbatim
transcript to ensure that an individual’s meaning is clear. The complainant
accepted that, during the conversation, she had agreed that she was “numb with
shock”, and “sitting by the phone waiting for news”. She was aware in doing so
that she was in a conversation with a journalist who was preparing to publish
an article reporting on Ms Laskey’s death. The particular phrases in question
were innocuous; the complainant had confirmed that they were an accurate
summary of her feelings; and no particular significance was attached to the
fact that they had been presented as a direct quotation. The Committee noted
that, had the words not been innocuous, their publication in this form might
have raised issues under Clause 1. In this instance, however, it concluded that
their publication was not significantly misleading. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
10. The Committee turned to consider the complaint under
Clause 5. Whilst it acknowledged that the call from the journalist may have
been unexpected, the conversation which followed did not suggest that the
journalist, by telephoning the complainant, had acted in a manner that was insensitive
or unsympathetic. On the complainant’s account of the conversation, the
journalist had introduced herself immediately after offering condolences and
confirming to whom she was speaking. The complainant’s account of the telephone
conversation, and the timing of the call, did not demonstrate that there had
been a lack of sympathy or discretion in the newspaper’s approach to the
complainant. Whilst the Committee expressed its sympathy to the complainant,
there was no breach of Clause 5.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 03/02/2015
Date decision issued: 23/03/2015