Resolution Statement – 02638-20 A woman v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy),
Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 6
(Children), Clause 12 (Discrimination) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of
the Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Moment weary
foul-mouthed EasyJet flight attendant, 36, starts mocking British passengers
for getting their 'glowing' teeth done in Turkey”, published on 5 October 2019.
2. The article reported that the complainant, a flight
attendant, had criticised passengers for undertaking dental procedures in
Turkey in a video on Snapchat. The article featured the video in question,
which was taken by the complainant while she was at work.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, as
she was not criticising or mocking passengers in the video and that the article
gave an inaccurate impression of her comments due to the circumstances in which
the video was made. She said that publishing footage of this incident
constituted an intrusion into her grief or shock. The complainant also said
that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information in
the article which reported her name, age, and hometown, and in regard to the
video itself, which was only shared with around 20 colleagues on a work
snapchat group. She said the publication
of the article and the subsequent backlash she had received through user
comments beneath the article constituted harassment in breach of Clause 3. The
complainant said that the article breached the terms of Clause 6 due to the
effect it would have on her daughter. She also said that the article
discriminated against her in breach of Clause 12.
4. Before contacting IPSO the complainant contacted the
publication, which agreed to remove the user comments as a means to resolve the
matter.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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.
6. Clause 2 (*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. 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.
7. Clause 3 (*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
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.
8. Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
9. Clause 6 (*Children)
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children
or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.
ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are
particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar
institutions.
10. Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability
must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
11. Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Mediated Outcome
12. The complainant was not satisfied with the publication’s
offer and complained to IPSO, which began an investigation into the matter.
13. The publication said that it was not aware of some new
details raised by the complainant in her IPSO complaint regarding the private
nature of the video, and upon receiving the complaint it promptly offered to
remove the article.
14. The complaint said that she was content to resolve the
matter on this basis.
15. 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: 15/04/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/05/2020
Back to ruling listing