A Man and the Irish Mail on Sunday

Complaint

A surgeon complained that a full-page article published in the Irish Mail on Sunday was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 (Privacy), and 9 (Children) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The article, about cosmetic surgery for young people, was based on a subterfuge in which a reporter posed as the mother of a l6-year-old patient, and an actress posed as her 16-year-old daughter. The l6-year-old pretended to be extremely anxious about her weight, and consulted the complainant about her problem.

The newspaper maintained that the issue of young people receiving liposuction treatment was a matter of major public concern, because cosmetic surgery is not covered by any specific guidelines in Ireland, and that this justified subterfuge in this case. It also maintained that the article was both truthful and accurate, and that the quotations attributed to the complainant were correctly transcribed from a tape recording of the consultation. It declined – on legal advice – to make the tape, or a transcript of it, available to the Press Ombudsman.

Decision

The complainant asserted that a claim in the article that “eminent nutritionists” advise a lifestyle change to rectify the situation described by the “patient” was wrong and misleading, in breach of Principle 1. The Press Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on this assertion.

Although direct quotations attributed to the complainant in the article are not disputed, the complainant said that several indirect quotations reporting him as advising that liposuction was a ‘better’ and ‘more effective’ way of losing weight than dieting were inaccurate and therefore a breach of Principle 1. While the newspaper replied that it did not believe that it had misrepresented or misreported what the complainant had said, and that the indirect quotations properly summarised what he had said, there is no other evidence to support this, and the direct quotations do not support the indirect quotations. It is therefore the opinion of the Press Ombudsman that, on the balance of the evidence available, the article’s indirect quotations were significantly inaccurate, and in this respect a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

Principle 3.2 of the Code of Practice states that publications shall not obtain information “through misrepresentation or subterfuge, unless justified by the public interest.” In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, the use of subterfuge as part of a journalistic investigation of the controversial issue of whether and in what circumstances young people can obtain liposuction is justifiable in this instance under the public interest clause in the Preamble of the Code of Practice. The complaint under Principle 3.2 is therefore not upheld.

However, Principle 3.1, under which the complaint was also made, provides that newspapers shall strive at all times for fairness and honesty not only in the procuring but also in the publishing of such news and information.

The complainant stated that the newspaper omitted to report what he considered to be his important professional advice to the “patient” not only to consult her GP for his opinion in advance of any decision on surgery, despite her unwillingness to do so, but also to return for another consultation with both her parents to discuss the situation further. By omitting this information, he said, the newspaper had sought to denigrate him and had painted him in an extremely negative light in a way that had had a significant impact on his reputation and his business.

While the article stated that the complainant was “clearly hesitant” at the consultation about offering liposuction to such a young “patient”, it did not include these significant conditions he expected to be met before making a final decision on surgery. Nor did the newspaper’s response directly contest the complainant’s account.

On the balance of the available evidence, the newspaper’s account of the consultation omitted significant details of the preconditions mentioned by the complainant before he would carry out surgery on this “patient.” In the Press Ombudsman’s opinion, this presents a breach of Principle 3.1 of the Code of Practice, in that the newspaper did not strive for fairness in the publication of the information it had procured. This part of the complaint is therefore upheld.

Although the newspaper had sought a statement from the complainant prior to publication, and included it at the end of the article, the complainant contended that it had not taken reasonable care in checking facts before publication because he had been contacted only at 5.30 pm on the Friday immediately preceding publication, had not been shown the text of the proposed article, and had been given a deadline for the following day. This, he said, was in breach of Principle 4 of the Code of Practice. Although the offer was very belated and limited, it is not clear – given the complainant’s statement that he did not feel free, for professional reasons, to comment on this particular consultation – that a more generous deadline would have materially altered the content of his response. In these circumstances the complaint under Principle 4 is not upheld.

The reference in the article to the complainant’s son was of doubtful relevance to the subject matter of the article and evidently hurtful for both the complainant and his family. However, it did not present a breach of either Principle 5 or Principle 9 of the Code of Practice, as the article contained no critical information that would have led to the identification of the complainant’s son. The complaints under these Principles are therefore not upheld.

3 April 2009

The complainant and the newspaper each appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.