Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17799-23 The Family of Steven Carrie v
edinburghlive.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
family of Steven Carrie complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that edinburghlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Young West Lothian Dad Collapsed and dies suddenly in family holiday
tragedy”, published on 29 March 2023.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – reported “a much-loved West Lothian dad
tragically died while on holiday with his family in the Peak District” two
years prior. It then said: “Steven Carrie was only 34 when he passed away
following a cardiac arrest two years ago and now his family have ensured help
is available to others by donating a defibrillator to the local community”. The
article went on to report “the defibrillator has been installed in sight of the
family's former home where Steven lived growing up for 20 years and can be seen
from his former bedroom” and “the family has worked with West Lothian Council
to install the life-saving device and ensure that it is easy to access should
it be needed in an emergency”.
3. The
complainants said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the
headline and text referred to Mr Carrie as a “dad” when he had no children.
4. The
complainants said the article under complaint was based on another article,
published in a separate publication, but that the tone of the article under
complaint had been altered from the original article – they alleged that this
had caused “immeasurable harm” to the family. They said that this was the case
as the tone of the original article was a “good news story” regarding the
installation of the defibrillator. The complainants said this, along with
reporting inaccurately Mr Carrie was a father, and publishing the article
without contacting Mr Carrie’s family, was insensitive reporting in breach of
Clause 4.
5. On 6
April, the day after the publication received the complaint via IPSO, it
contacted the complainants to let them know the article had been removed. The
publication accepted the article was inaccurate to refer to Mr Carrie as a
“dad” and apologised directly to the complainants. It also offered to publish
the following standalone correction:
“Steven
Carrie – A Correction and apology. An article reporting the tragic death of
Steven Carrie, 34, who passed away following a cardiac arrest two years ago,
incorrectly referred to him as a 'Dad' in the headline and opening paragraph.
We would like to clarify that Mr Carrie did not have any children, and would
like to apologise for this error and for any upset caused. This article has
since been removed”.
6. The
above correction was subsequently published on 2 May. On 26 July, upon being
asked whether the correction was linked on the homepage, the publication said
it was not able to confirm whether this was the case. It therefore published a
link to the correction on its homepage that same day.
7. While
the publication expressed regret at the error, and had corrected it, it said
that the terms of neither Clause 1 nor Clause 4 required it to contact the
family prior to publication. The publication also said reporting Mr Carrie was
a father did not engage the terms of Clause 4. It said publication had been
handled sensitively and the error was neither deliberate nor malicious.
8. The
complainants did not accept the correction as a resolution to their complaint.
They believed any remedial action should acknowledge their position that the
publication had changed the purpose of the original article, which was to
promote the use of defibrillators. The complainants also wished for a private
apology for the harm and distress the publication had caused.
Relevant
Clause 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 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
9. The
Committee first wished to express its condolences to the family of Mr Carrie.
10. The
Editors’ Code makes clear publications must take care not to publish
inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. This is particularly important
when reporting on deaths – given the circumstances involved, any error can have
a significant impact on a person’s loved ones and wider community. In this
instance, the publication did not dispute it had inaccurately reported Mr
Carrie was a father, and it had not set out what care it had taken prior to
publication to ensure that this was not inaccurate. This represented a failure
to take care over the accuracy of the article in breach of Clause 1 (i).
11. Given
this was a serious and avoidable error with the clear potential to cause
distress to the complainants, a correction and an apology were required to meet
the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
12. The
day after the publication was made aware of the complaint, the publication
wrote to the complainants apologising for its error. It offered to publish a
standalone correction that included an apology. It also stated the article had
subsequently been removed. The remedial action put the correct position on
record – which was that Mr Carrie was not a father – and was offered the day
after the publication was referred the complainant by IPSO. This was subsequently
published on 2 May. Although the publication was not able to confirm where the
correction was originally linked, once it was made aware that a link may not
have appeared on the homepage, it published a link to the correction there. In
these circumstances, the Committee considered the remedial action to have been
sufficiently prompt and prominent. There was no further breach of Clause 1
(ii).
13. The
Committee then considered whether Clause 4 had been breached. The complainants
said that the tone of the article was markedly different from another article
which they had approved of, and that this was insensitive in breach of Clause
4. Although the Committee appreciated that the complainants were unhappy with
the article, there is no requirement under Clause 4 for articles to be approved
or checked with the loved ones of deceased individuals, or for the tone of
articles to be positive. There is, however, an obligation for publication to be
handled sensitively – though what this will mean in practice will vary based on
the circumstances. The Committee noted the article did not seek to make light
of or minimise the circumstances of Mr Carrie’s death, and the tone of the
article was warm and respectful. As such, the Committee did not consider the
article to be insensitive. There was no breach of Clause 4 on this point.
14. The
Committee also considered whether the inaccuracy in the headline had breached
Clause 4. The Committee appreciated this error had caused distress to the
family of Mr Carrie. However, the terms of Clause 4 stipulate publication
should be handled sensitively. While the Committee did not wish to minimise the
distress the inaccuracy had caused, it did not find the inaccuracy was
insensitive to the extent it had altered the article’s generally respectful and
sensitive tone. As such, the Committee did not consider the article to have
breached Clause 4 on this point.
15. The
Committee finally considered whether not contacting the family of Mr Carrie
prior to the publication of the article was a breach of Clause 4. Clause 4 does
not stipulate approaches must be made, rather it clarifies if they are made
this must be done with sympathy and discretion. There is no obligation under
the Clause for publications to contact the next-of-kin of deceased individuals
prior to publication. There was no breach of Clause 4 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
13. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
14. The
wording offered put the correct position on record, was offered promptly and
with due prominence. No further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 30/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/08/2023