Gibson and the Irish Daily Mirror

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Daily Mirror made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint made by Mr Jerome Gibson about a breach of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines in an article published on l7 July 2010.

Mr Gibson complained that the article was in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper accepted that the headline to the article, which dealt with the death of the complainant’s sister, was insensitive and ought not to have been used, and that it was a breach of the Code of Practice. It undertook to publish an acknowledgment of this, an apology for its publication, and a correction of some of the inaccuracies about which Mr Gibson complained, and submitted a text on this basis to Mr Gibson. It also stated that it had reminded all its editorial staff of the provisions of Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice, relating to the seeking and publication of information in situations of personal grief and shock.

Mr Gibson, however, required a pre-condition that any such acknowledgment or apology or correction would have to be published on the front page of the newspaper (the original article was published on page 11 and the newspaper had offered to publish its text on the same page and in the same position as the original article). He also complained that the newspaper had not responded in full to his complaint. The newspaper invited him to submit a revised text for consideration, but Mr Gibson declined to do so.

While it is self-evident that a tragic death is extraordinarily traumatic for family and friends, and that any reporting of such deaths will inevitably add to the distress of the bereaved, it does not follow that no such deaths should be reported. In this case, the newspaper’s acceptance that its coverage had, in its most significant aspect – the headline – been in breach of the Code of Practice, was an essential first step towards a resolution of the complaint. While the factual errors in the article (which the newspaper offered to correct) obviously enhanced the sense of grievance felt by the complainant about the headline, they were not in themselves significant, and were evidently based on, and attributed to, the reporter’s sources, and published in good faith as part of the newspaper’s coverage of this tragic event.

Although there is no guarantee that waiving the pre-condition imposed by the complainant might have led to an agreement on what was to be published, this pre-condition, and the complainant’s unwillingness to indicate a preferred wording for whatever might be published, makes it impossible to reach any conclusion other than that the newspaper made a reasonable offer that was, in all the circumstances, an offer of sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint under Principles 1, 2, 4 and 5.

The newspaper’s further action in reminding all its editorial staff of the provisions of Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice was one that can be recommended to all member publications in reporting tragic events of this kind, as can the detailed and helpful guidelines on reporting suicide issued by the Samaritans and other organizations.

There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information complained about, or that the information published was intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred on the basis of the criterion set out in Principle 8. The complaints under Principle 3 and Principle 8 of the Code are therefore not upheld.

9 December 2010

Mr Gibson appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.