Resolution
Statement – 12378-20 Way v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Naomi
Way complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) in an
article headline “Divorced single mother, 33, says she has no problem getting
dates with men who call her 'beautiful' but claims she's been dumped 30 times
because they see her two children as 'baggage'” published on 7 August 2020.
2. The
article was a woman’s account of dating as a single parent. She said that in
her experience, potential partners were put off by the fact she had children.
The article included information about her life and background as well as
photographs of her and her children. Her children’s faces were visible in these
photographs and the article gave their names and ages.
3. The
complainant was the woman whose account was reported in the article. She said
that the article was inaccurate – it was not the case that she had been
“dumped” 30 times and in fact she had been on 30 dates which had not worked
out. She also said that the article breached Clause 2 and Clause 6 by using
photographs of her and her children without her permission. She said that these
were taken from her Facebook page.
4. The
newspaper did not accept that the article breached the Editors’ Code. It said
that the article was based on an interview the complainant gave to a different
newspaper on the same points. It said that the headline of this original
article also used the word “dumped”, and in any event the description was not
an inaccurate summary of the complainant’s position that she had been on 30
failed dates. It said the photographs used in the article were publicly
available on the complainant’s social media without any privacy settings, and
noted that at the time the article was published, the original article used
un-pixelated photographs of the children. It also said that identifying details
of her children had already been provided with her consent to be used in the
other article.
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.
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.
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
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.
Mediated
Outcome
8. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
9.
During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to remove the online
article from its website.
10. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
11. 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: 12/08/20
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/10/20