Decision of the Complaints Committee 04737-18 Jones v Epsom Guardian
Summary of complaint
1. Joanna Jones complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Epsom Guardian breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published online headlined “Epsom mum fighting back against leukemia”, published on 27 June 2018.
2. The article was
based on a “Your News” submission which the complainant had submitted to the
newspaper. The piece was in the form of a press release in which the
complainant had sought to raise awareness of a stem cell donor registration
event taking place at a local primary school, following her own diagnosis of
leukemia in November 2016.
3. The complainant
said that the article was a distortion of the contents of her original press
release, and represented an intrusion into her privacy, because it had
disclosed her email address, without her consent.
4. The complainant said that she had not stated in the press release that she had “hoped to avoid chemotherapy”, as reported in the article; she had stated “there was no perfect stem cell donor match on the worldwide register for Jo so she is undergoing 3 years of chemotherapy instead”. The complainant said it was not possible to avoid chemotherapy after being diagnosed with leukemia. The press release stated that she had been diagnosed with leukemia in November 2016; the article had reported that she had been diagnosed “nearly three years ago”. The press release had stated that both of the complainant’s children had been pupils at a local primary school when she had been diagnosed; the article had reported that they were current pupils there. The complainant said that in fact, one of her children no longer attended the school.
5. The complainant
said that she had expressly clicked a box titled “Don’t credit me”, which had
stated: “we will always need your contact details so we can contact you about
your submission but, if you check this box, we will never publish details
alongside your contributions”.
6. The complainant
expressed concern at the manner in which the publication had responded to her
concerns when she had raised them to the publication directly via a telephone
call, shortly after the article had been published. The complainant said that,
while the editor had been calm throughout the conversation, he had not
expressed compassion or sympathy for her diagnosis, or the situation she had
found herself in. She said that the publication’s failure to respond to her
concerns in an empathetic way, was highly insensitive given her distressing
personal situation.
7. The publication
expressed regret that the article had caused the complainant concern, but noted
that after the complainant had contacted it directly, the article was removed
immediately from online, and the complainant was called back to be reassured
that the article would not be appearing in print.
8. The newspaper
did not accept that the published article represented a breach of Clause 1. It
said that it was standard practice for reader submissions to be reviewed and
edited by the publication, before being published online, as had happened in
the complainant’s case.
9. The newspaper
accepted the complainant’s position that she had not said in her original
submission that she had “hoped to avoid chemotherapy”. The publication also
accepted that the complainant had not been diagnosed with cancer “nearly three
years ago”, and acknowledged her position that only one of her children now
attended the primary school. However, the publication denied that the changes
which had been made to the original copy, had resulted in errors that
significantly distorted the tone or meaning of the complainant’s press release.
The publication noted that the complainant had submitted the piece in an effort
to promote the stem cell donor register event; praise the school for its
support of her children; and publicise the forthcoming Fun Day. It said that
the article had featured all these key elements, as, the publication suggested,
the complainant had hoped the article would do.
10. In an attempt to resolve the complaint, the publication offered to publish the following wording on its homepage:
In an article headlined “Epsom mum fighting back against leukemia”, published on 27th June 2018, we reported that Joanna Jones was diagnosed with leukemia nearly three years ago, and had been hopeful to avoid chemotherapy during that time. We are happy to clarify that, in fact, Mrs Jones was diagnosed with Leukemia in November 2016 and she did not suggest in her Your News submission that she had hoped to avoid chemotherapy. We also reported that both her children are students at Stamford Green Primary; while both of Mrs Jones’ children used to attend this school, one of them no longer does so.
11. The publication denied that it had breached Clause 2 by publishing the complainant’s email address. It noted that in her submission, the complainant had expressly stated; “for more information about stem cell donor registration please contact Jo Jones” and had provided her email address and telephone number. The publication said there was nothing to suggest that the complainant did not want her email to be used by its readers.
12. The publication acknowledged that the complainant had ticked the “Don’t credit me” box when she had submitted her story. However it said the box applied to photo credits or other submissions which, unlike in the complainant’s case, did not relate to a specific person, or include their photograph.
13. The publication said that when the complainant had
approached the newspaper directly and had spoken to staff, her concerns had
been received sympathetically. It did not accept the complainant’s account of
her interaction with the newspaper, save for her recollection that the editor
had been calm when he had spoken to her, and said that Clause 4 had not been
breached.
Findings of the Committee
14. 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 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.
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.
Findings of the Committee
15. The Committee expressed sympathy for the complainant, and acknowledged that she had found the article distressing.
16. In the press release, the complainant had not stated that she had “hoped to avoid chemotherapy”. However, she had said that despite seeking a stem cell donor match, none was found, and that she was undergoing three years of chemotherapy “instead”. While the Committee understood the sensitivity of the issue, it was of the view that the complainant’s original submission had the potential to be read ambiguously. The inference which the newspaper had drawn from it, namely that the complainant had “hoped to avoid chemotherapy”, was not unreasonable, nor was it a failure to take care. The article had made clear that the complainant had sought to obtain a donor, and had not been able to do so. In those circumstances, and where she had identified the benefits of obtaining a blood stem cell donor, had sought a match, but had been unsuccessful, the newspaper’s interpretation of the complainant’s submission was not significantly misleading, such that a correction would be required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). This aspect of the complainant did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
17. In the press release, the complainant had said that both
of her children had been pupils at the time of her diagnosis; the submission
contained no suggestion that this was no longer the case. In those
circumstances, the newspaper had not failed to take care over the accuracy of
the article in reporting that both of her children remained pupils there; where
one of her children still remained a pupil at the school, this error was not a
significant inaccuracy which required correction. There was no breach of Clause
1 on this point.
18. The complainant had been diagnosed with leukemia in
November 2016; this was clearly not “nearly three years ago”, as the article
had claimed. While the Committee recognised that the date of any diagnosis is
deeply significant for the individual concerned, in the context of an article
primarily concerned with the promotion of stem cell donation, such an error did
not render the tenor of the piece significantly inaccurate.
19. While the amendments which the newspaper had made to the
press release had not resulted in any inaccuracies which represented a breach
of Clause 1, given the sensitivity of the complaint, the Committee welcomed the
newspaper’s offer of a clarification, which addressed the points above.
20. The Committee recognised that in certain circumstances,
the publication of an individual’s contact details may have the potential to be
intrusive. However, in this case, the press release submitted by the complainant
for the purposes of publication, had contained the complainant’s email address;
it had stated that she could be contacted for further information on stem cell
donor registration, should readers wish to do so. The Committee acknowledged
that the complainant had ticked the “Don’t Credit me” box, when she had issued
her submission. However, she had included her email address in the press
release, and this gave rise to an ambiguity: it was reasonable for the
publication to interpret the inclusion the email address, contained within a
press release, as meaning that the complainant had provided this information
for publication. In those circumstances, the Committee did not establish that
the disclosure of her email address in the article under complaint, represented
an intrusion into the complainant’s privacy. There was no breach of Clause 2.
21. Clause 4 states that in cases involving grief or shock,
enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion, and
publication handled sensitively. The Committee recognised that the issues
raised in the article were highly sensitive and personal to the complainant.
However, the Committee considered that the purpose of Clause 4 is to provide
protections to individuals during times of grief or shock, following tragic
events or trauma. In this case, while the Committee understood the
complainant’s concern, in this instance, it considered that she had not been in
a state of “grief or shock” such as would engage the terms of Clause 4.
Conclusion
22. The complaint was not upheld.
Date complaint received: 27/07/2018
Date complaint concluded: 27/09/2018