Independent complaints reviewer appointed
Former local authority chief executive Trish Haines will undertake reviews of complaints handling process
The role of independent complaints reviewer is an important part of IPSO’s service to complainants and undertakes reviews of IPSO’s handling of investigated complaints to ensure that the process has been fair and transparent to all concerned. Mrs Haines’ open recruitment and appointment was overseen by IPSO’s Independent Appointments Panel, chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips.
Trish Haines comes from a local government background, and served twice as chief executive – in Reading Borough Council and Worcestershire County Council. Her professional background is in social care, where she worked in both adult and children’s services in Warwickshire, Berkshire and Yorkshire. Since retiring in 2014, she has held non-executive roles in the NHS, Age UK and Malvern Theatres. She has broad experience of overseeing a range of regulatory regimes in both statutory and voluntary settings.
|
|
Matt Tee to take part in second IPSO Twitter Q&A
IPSO Chief Executive will answer questions on the Annual Report
Matt Tee will be taking part in a second IPSO Twitter Q&A on Wednesday 21 September at 3pm. Follow @ipsonews on the day or submit your question via direct message beforehand.
Listen to Matt Tee on the Media Masters podcast
|
|
Campaigner's complaint resolved with publication of article
Correction also published to ensure accuracy
Read full resolution statement
Jolly Stanesby complained that the Plymouth Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) in an article headlined “Campaigner wants statue to celebrate his protests”, published in print and online on 20 October 2015.
The article reported that the complainant had “made headlines over the last decade for climbing up Exeter Cathedral, protesting on Harriet Harman’s roof and breaching security at Trouping the Colour in his fight for parental equality”. It said that the complainant “want[ed] to construct a statue in his own honour” and had “revealed he is working on plans for his own historic sculpture”.
The complainant said that the article’s claims were inaccurate and that the publication breached Clause 2 because it had not responded adequately to his concerns, prior to his complaint to IPSO.
The newspaper accepted that the claims about the statue were inaccurate and said an error had been made during the subbing process – it had misunderstood a quote from a spokesperson over who had requested the construction of the statue. It apologised to the complainant for the mistake, and offered to publish a clarification in print and to amend the online article.
The complainant did not accept this offer as a resolution to his complaint but the newspaper nonetheless published the correction in order to ensure accuracy. The complainant said that the correction published by the newspaper would have gone unnoticed, and instead wanted it to publish an article about a speech his daughter had previously given in parliament regarding the family courts. After IPSO mediation, the newspaper offered to publish a further article about the complainant’s daughter’s experiences with the family courts both in print and online.
|
|
Obituary complaint resolved by IPSO
Footnote added to online version and correction published in print
Read full resolution statement
David Gordon complained that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article headlined “Mildred Gordon, MP – obituary”, published on 14 April 2016. The complainant is the son of Mildred Gordon, a former Labour MP, and expressed concern that the newspaper’s obituary of his mother included misleading information and inaccuracies.
The complainant said that it was inaccurate for the article to report that:
- his stepfather, Nils Kaare Dahl had survived Mildred Gordon as he had died in 1996
- Mildred Gordon was “deported to her native Britain from the United States” and “her activities led the US government to deport her in the 1950s”
- “in London [Mildred Gordon] gravitated to Labour as it moved Left-wards” after returning to London from the USA as she had already been a member of the Labour party for over a decade.
The complainant also said that the article had attributed to Ms Gordon a comment which she had never made and that it was misleading for his mother to be described as a “disciple of Ken Livingstone” as she had had many disagreements with him. He said it was also misleading for the article to report that “Northern traditionalists” had voted for Mildred Gordon to become a member of the Shadow Cabinet “to embarrass the leadership” as there were a number of reasons why Labour MPs voted for her. Finally, the complainant considered the claim that his stepfather, Nils Kaare Dahl had “once been Trotsky’s bodyguard” to be misleading as it misrepresented his acquaintance with Trotsky.
The newspaper accepted that its report of the death of Nils Kaare Dahl was inaccurate, apologised and amended the online article. The newspaper said it had made clear the basis for its claim that Mildred Gordon had been deported to the US but offered to publish a clarification. The complainant did not accept this offer as a resolution to his complaint.
Following IPSO mediation, the newspaper offered to publish a further correction, as a footnote to the online article and in the Obituaries section of the newspaper:
Correction :
An earlier version of this article stated, inaccurately, that Mildred Gordon was deported from the United States and that she was survived by her husband Nils Dahl. Mr Dahl in fact died in 1996. He had not "once been" Trotsky's bodyguard, as the article said; rather, he was once asked to be prepared to fulfil this role, but the opportunity to do so did not arise. Mildred Gordon joined the Labour Party in 1942 rather than gravitating to Labour in the 1950s as the article originally implied. She had disagreements with Ken Livingstone on a number of occasions and was not his 'disciple', as the article said. We apologise for these errors, which have been corrected. Her son, Professor David Gordon, has also asked us to record his belief that Mrs Gordon came close in 1993 to winning a seat on the Shadow Cabinet for a range of reasons, including her strong campaigning work, and not because she was the "least credible figure" that Labour MPs "could vote for to embarrass the leadership”. We are further content to clarify that the obituary's claim that Mildred Gordon wrote in a 1990 New Year’s message about "the Thatcher government’s continuing attempts to literally grind the faces of the poor” was drawn from a 1990 Telegraph news item quoting a contemporary Labour party publication, not from the actual publication itself. Whether the words attributed to Mrs Gordon were in fact written by her, or published, is unknown.
The complainant said the proposed correction would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
|
|
Case study: Inclusion of attack video did not constitute failure to handle publication sensitively
Family were notified by police of video's distribution to the media
Read full ruling
The family of Paul Tam complained that Mail Online breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) in an article headlined “The horrifying moment a British tourist was fatally stabbed in the head trying to flee a bag snatcher on a busy San Francisco street”.
The article reported that Paul Tam had died in a San Francisco hospital a month after being stabbed in the head during a street robbery and included CCTV footage showing the attack. The complainant said that the footage had been published the day after Mr Tam’s death, when family and friends were still in shock, and that its publication had made the grieving process “very difficult”. He said that police had informed Mr Tam’s brother that the video would be released, and he was given general information about its contents, but had not been given the opportunity to object and believed he had “little choice” but to agree.
The complainant said that the video was “exceptionally graphic”. While he acknowledged that publication in the US might have assisted the criminal justice process there, it served no purpose to publish the video in the UK. He said if there had been a genuine desire to appeal for witnesses then the article would have made that clear, and would have given contact details for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).
The publication said that it had been fully aware of its obligation to handle the story with sensitivity and that it was sorry that the video had caused distress at such a difficult time. While it understood that the footage was – by its very nature – upsetting, it did not consider that its publication raised a breach of the Code.
The publication said it has a significant US readership and had published the video because there was a clear public interest in exposing the crime and assisting the police with their investigation. It noted that numerous other US and UK-based websites had also published the video. The police had explained that Mr Tam’s brother was consulted before the video was released. He had known its contents, and he had not raised any objections at that time. The police had made clear that the video would not have been released had the family objected to it.
The publication said that the footage was not gratuitous or gory: it was grainy, black-and-white CCTV footage, and it had not shown the incident close up. While the police had wanted to show the “viciousness and savagery” of the attack, they had made clear that they would not have released a video that was “too graphic”.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee wished to express its sincere condolences to Mr Tam’s family and friends. It acknowledged that news organisations play an important role in reporting crimes, matters about which the public have a legitimate right to be informed and that reports of serious crimes – even when handled responsibly and with proper sensitivity – will risk causing distress. However, Clause 4 does not prohibit the reporting of distressing events; it requires instead that insofar as is possible, publication is handled sensitively.
In reaching its findings on sensitivity, the Committee had particular regard for the nature and contents of the video, the manner in which it was presented within the article, and the circumstances in which the video had been obtained. The footage showed a horrifying moment; however, it was shot from a distance, was grainy, and did not include sound. Neither Mr Tam’s face nor the weapon used was visible, and while it clearly depicted Mr Tam fleeing from his attacker before falling to the floor, the quality of the video was such that the specific moment of injury could not clearly be seen.
The footage was published as an illustration of the incident described in the article and was therefore directly relevant to the story. The article itself was presented as a straight news piece. The manner in which the video was published did not humiliate or demean Mr Tam, nor his death.
The video had been released by the San Francisco Police Department 18 days after the incident to a number of media outlets, and Mr Tam’s family had been given notification of release and contents. The footage had been released to a number of media outlets, in an attempt to find Mr Tam’s attackers, and had been widely published, including on police social media accounts.
The Committee understood that watching the video of Mr Tam’s attack must have been extremely distressing to those that knew him. However, in circumstances where the family were notified in advance by the police that the video would be circulated to media outlets for publication, and given the way in which it was presented, the Committee did not consider that its inclusion in the article represented a failure to handle publication sensitively in breach of Clause 4. Therefore the complaint was not upheld.
|
|
|
|
