Resolution
Statement – 02037-22 A woman v Barnsley Chronicle
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Barnsley
Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article published on 11 March 2022.
2. The
article reported on a short film and contained an interview with the film’s
writer. It described the writer as being “a domestic abuse survivor” who it
said had “fled domestic abuse” and also as the mother of “two autistic sons”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format.
4. The
complainant, the film’s writer, said that the article was inaccurate in breach
of Clause 1. She said that during the interview with the journalist she had
agreed to the article referencing the fact that she had received therapy with a
charity which aims to support “people affected by domestic abuse and sexual
violence”, but she said she did not consent to being called a “domestic abuse
survivor” who “fled domestic abuse”, and that she had not described herself in
this way. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to state she had two
autistic sons.
5. The
complainant said that during the interview she had asked that no reference,
mention or implication of any personal domestic abuse be published in the
article. She said that publishing this information therefore resulted in a
breach of Clause 2. She also said she did not give consent for the information
to be published about her children, which she also said was an intrusion into
her privacy.
6. The
publication said that the journalist who had interviewed the complainant had
taken contemporaneous notes and provided them to IPSO. It said that it had
appeared during the interview that the complainant had wanted to refer to the
charity she had received therapy from, and that she had not asked for any
information not to be included. The publication said that the information
regarding the complainant’s children had been published in human error and was
not supported by her notes.
7. The
publication said it did not accept that the complainant had requested any of
the information she gave during the interview not to be published. It therefore
did not consider she had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the
information as she had willingly given it to a journalist.
8. The
publication offered to publish a follow up article in order to clear up the
complainant’s concerns.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published.
In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to print the following
correction:
In an
article headline "Producer lends support to writer Jennifer's film
project" published on 11 March, we reported that the film's writer had
"fled domestic abuse". In fact, the writer had not said this during
the interview, and has asked us to make clear this was not true. We are happy
to clarify this.
11. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated,
the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had
been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 14/03/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/07/2022
Back to ruling listing