A Woman and the Sunday World
The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by a woman under Principles 4, 5 and 9 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
In late 2014 the Sunday World reported that a 13 year-old girl had announced her engagement to a man in his early 20s on Facebook. The report was accompanied by two photographs of a couple with their faces pixilated.
A letter was sent to the editor of the Sunday World on behalf of the parents of the child referred to in the article complaining that the local community where the girl lived could identify her from the photographs that were published, that the claim about her being engaged was incorrect and that the newspaper made no effort to contact the girl or her parents before publication to verify the accuracy of the claim.
The mother of the child subsequently wrote to the Press Ombudsman’s Office. She claimed that by publishing the report the Sunday World had breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 9 (Children) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. The complaint to the Press Ombudsman’s Office was forwarded to the editor of the Sunday World.
He responded and stated that the report was accurate and that there had been “several sources for this story”. He claimed that the newspaper was justified in its report as it “highlighted how children’s rights are being endangered through pressure to get married and to live up to the ideal among a certain peer group”. In regard to privacy and the publication of the pixilated photographs of the girl he stated that her “name and photograph were already available to view on a publically available Facebook page”. He said that the newspaper had not named her and had altered the photographs to “protect her identity”. This response was forwarded to the complainant.
She replied rejecting the editor’s defence of the article. She continued to maintain that her daughter was not engaged. In regard to the publication of the Facebook photographs of her daughter she claimed that there was a distinction between a private page used by private individuals “who had failed to activate the filters to ensure only friends can see their posts” and public pages used by businesses, celebrities, etc. where it is “intended that the general public can see what is posted”.
As the complaint could not be resolved through conciliation it was referred to the Press Ombudsman for his consideration. At this point the Sunday World supplied screengrabs off Facebook which showed a couple. Accompanying the image were comments saying how well they looked as a couple and congratulating them. These grabs were forwarded by the Press Ombudsman’s Office to the complainant. She replied that neither she nor her husband had seen the Facebook images and comments before. She reiterated that her daughter was 13 years of age, a child, and was not getting married. She further stated that none of the comments posted on Facebook referred to the couple getting married.
I find that Principle 4 has been breached. The newspaper did not make sufficient efforts to check the claims they proposed publishing with the girl, her boyfriend or her parents. I judge this failure to be a beach of Principle 4. The newspaper had a responsibility to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. It did not do so in this instance.
I find that Principle 5 has been breached. The use of the photographs of the child, despite being pixilated, did breach her privacy as she would be recognisable to a much wider group than just her Facebook friends.
I also find that Principle 9 has been breached. A 13 year-old child is a vulnerable person and a newspaper is obliged to take this into consideration before publishing anything about that child. I do not believe this happened in this case.
The newspaper put forward a public interest argument in justifying what it had published. I accept that there is a public interest argument that newspapers can and should highlight underage girls getting engaged and married at a stage in their lives when they are not sufficiently mature to make such an important decision. However the public interest in this instance does not outweigh the rights of the child to her privacy.
In regard to Principle 1 the report in the Sunday World stated that the “young girl is set to get married”. I have insufficient evidence to make a decision on this part of the complaint as the newspaper says it was confirmed by sources and the family say it is not true. The Facebook comments are inconclusive.
The complainant claimed that Principle 3 had been breached. For a complaint to be upheld under this Principle information must be obtained by misrepresentation or subterfuge or through harassment. No evidence has been produced that this happened in this case.
16 April 2015