· Decision of the Complaints Committee 02667-15 Heimlich v Mirror.co.uk
Summary of
complaint
1. Peter Heimlich complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Mirror.co.uk had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Dog stops pensioner from
choking to death on pickled onion with 'Heimlich Manoeuvre', published on 1
April 2015.
2. The article reported that a dog had stopped a man from
choking to death by carrying out the “Heimlich manoeuvre”.
3. The complainant said the Heimlich manoeuvre was a
first aid procedure for dislodging an obstruction from a person’s windpipe by
applying a sudden strong pressure to the abdomen. He said the article had
stated that the dog had jumped onto its owner’s back; as such, he had performed
back blows, not the Heimlich manoeuvre. The newspaper had amended the article,
but it would not append a note stating that a correction had been made, and it
would not apologise for the inaccuracy.
4. The newspaper said the story about a dog carrying out
a “canine version of the Heimlich manoeuvre” was clearly light-hearted. The
article was amended as a gesture of good will, not because the newspaper
considered that the reference to the Heimlich manoeuvre was significantly
misleading.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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.
Findings of the Committee
6. The article was a light, heart-warming account of a
dog saving the life of its owner. It had clearly described the dog’s actions.
The humorous reference to the “canine version” of the Heimlich manoeuvre had
not created a significantly misleading impression of how the Heimlich manoeuvre
is performed. The complaint under Clause 1 was not upheld.
Conclusions
7. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 13/04/2015