French and the Irish Sun

Complaint

Mrs French complained about an article published in the Irish Sun on 8 February 2008 relating to the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s death, in relation to which no information has as yet been published as part of the public record. She complained that the article breached Principle 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 5.3 (Privacy). The headlines to the article read “Katy took Heroin” and “Model mixed it with coke and champers”. The first paragraph of the article added: “Tragic Katy French died after swallowing HEROIN mixed with cocaine, the Irish Sun has learned.”

The newspaper, in a very comprehensive response, supported its contention that its reports were true and accurate by arguing that the information published was based on confidential and “well-placed” sources within the Garda Siochana and that it carried an adequate explanation of the basis on which the evidence was being advanced. It rejected any suggestion that it had misrepresented the source of its information as “official”, and maintained that investigative journalism is entitled to use all sorts of evidence, including hearsay, and that the reader was in no confusion in terms of differentiating between comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed report.

Decision

Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports that do not breach other principles of the Code may, as the newspaper argues, form a legitimate component of newspaper reportage. Principle 2.1 of the Code specifically requires that they shall not be reported as if they were fact. The issue that arises in this case is whether the unmistakeable presentation of unconfirmed reports, as fact, in the two headlines and in the lead paragraph to the article, was a breach of Principle 2.1, or whether the information contained later in the article - that they were based on unconfirmed reports, was sufficient to avoid confusion.

It is inevitable that headlines involve a compression of content that can sometimes be inadvertently misleading. In this case, however, the prominent and dramatic presentation of unconfirmed reports as fact in both headlines and in the introductory paragraph constitute an unambiguous invitation to readers to take these statements at their face value, i.e. as fact. While the article subsequently attributes these and other statements about the circumstances of Ms French’s death to specific sources in a context which makes it clear that they are unconfirmed reports, these later attributions do little to modify the impact created by the prominence and text of the headlines and the introductory paragraph, which therefore amount to a breach of Principle 2.1.

The presentation in the headlines of these unconfirmed reports as fact also breached Principle 5.3, in that their publication did not take sufficiently into consideration the feelings of the grieving family.

Mrs French’s complaint that the article also breached Principle 1.1 was based on the fact that at the time of publication of the article, no official reports, toxicology results or evidence was available in relation to the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s death. Therefore, she believed, the newspaper did not strive sufficiently for truth and accuracy. However, since there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the accuracy or otherwise of the statements about which Mrs French complained, it is not possible to determine whether or not Principle 1.1 was breached.

2 May 2008

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