01664-24 Jackson v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Taj Jackson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Unseal child porn stash, say Jacko's accusers”, published on 7 April 2024.

2. The article opened: “Disgraced pop icon Michael Jackson collected nude photographs of his child molestation victims, claim two of his former accusers.” It said that “the stash of child porn taken by the singer was seized during a police raid on his Neverland Ranch in California in 2003, and sealed by the court, say [two men], who were allegedly abused by the superstar when they were children.” It also said that the Jackson estate’s “lawyers are fighting to keep the files sealed, claiming the men want to get their hands on naked photos of Jackson taken by police during a sexual assault investigation of a boy, 13, in 1993.” It then reported that the alleged victims “want the case file unsealed to expose the fallen superstar’s cache of unseen photos, saying: ‘Michael Jackson took and collected sexually provocative photographs of children that were seized by the police in their criminal investigation.’”

3. The complainant, Michael Jackson’s nephew, said that the article inaccurately reported that his uncle’s estate was “fighting to keep the files sealed”. He said this gave the misleading impression that the estate accepted the files contained child pornography, which he disputed. He said that a prosecutor in an earlier trial against his uncle had confirmed this.

4. The complainant also said the newspaper had breached Clause 1 because it had not approached the Jackson family for comment prior to the publication of the article.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It disputed that the article reported child pornography was found in Michael Jackson’s home – it said it had reported that this had been alleged by the two men involved in the court case, and their allegations were not presented as fact. It said it took care to present these allegations as claims and to make clear the claims were currently the subject of litigation. It stated the family were fighting to keep files sealed, and that the article explained this was because the lawyers believed it was a bad faith attempt to obtain naked pictures of Michael Jackson.

6. The publication did not accept it was obliged to contact the Jackson family for comment. It said the allegations against Mr Jackson had been very widely covered for decades, and any reasonable reader would understand that he and his estate denied all allegations of wrongdoing. It said that adding a further denial to the story would be unnecessary.

7. The complainant said that it was a matter of public record that the allegations regarding child pornography was false, and it was an “inarguable matter of fact” that any such allegations were false.

8. The publication said that the fact that the two accusers were being allowed to litigate this allegation in court proved that the matter was not settled as the complainant had alleged. It did not, therefore, accept that reporting such allegations was inaccurate.

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.

Findings of the Committee

9. The Committee noted the complaint’s concerns, but stressed that when considering whether an article contains inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information articles should be considered as a whole. A sentence which – when read in isolation – may on its face appear to be misleading, can be entirely accurate when read in the context of a full article.

10. The article made clear from its outset that “two of his former accusers” had “claim[ed]” that Michael Jackson collected images showing nude child molestation victims. This was reinforced by the headline: “Unseal child porn stash, say Jacko’s accusers”. The article also stated that it was the two accuser’s position that “the stash of child porn taken by the singer was seized during a police raid on his Neverland Ranch in California in 2003, and sealed by the court]”, and that the men had “demanded the photographs be unsealed”. It was also not in dispute that such an allegation had been made as a part of the ongoing legal action brought by the two men.

11. The article also set out the Jackson estate’s response to these allegations, which was that they were “fighting to keep the files sealed, claiming the men want to get their hands on naked photos of Jackson taken by police during a sexual assault investigation of a boy”. Considering the article as a whole, the Committee was satisfied that the allegation – that Michael Jackson had a “child porn stash” – was clearly distinguished as an allegation, rather than being reported as established fact. The Committee also considered that the article did not suggest that the estate accepted that a file existed which contained child pornography. The article reported that the lawyer for the two men was making an application to the court to unseal the case file, not that the application related to a specific file of photographs which the estate acknowledged existed. The article accurately reported that the estate was arguing that this file should not be unsealed and set out its position that the application was being made for an ulterior purpose. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

12. The Editors’ Code does not include any standalone requirement for publications to contact interested parties prior to the publication of articles, unless this is necessary in order to take care the article is accurate. Where the Committee did not consider the article contained any inaccurate information over which the publication should have taken care, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

14. N/A

Date complaint received: 21/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/08/2024