A weekly newspaper has issued a clarification and apology after publishing a front page photo of the wrong woman in a story about a student who was seriously injured.
The Croydon Advertiser published an article in last week’s edition about a student who had been left in a coma after being struck by a tram.
It included a front page photo of a woman called Holly Judge who was said to be the injured student – but the paper has since published an online apology because it was the wrong person.
The apology said: “In our front page story today (‘Student struck by tram left in coma’) we carry a picture of Holly Judge, from Croydon.
“The Croydon Advertiser would like to point out that the victim referred to in the story is NOT the Holly Judge pictured on the front page and on this website.
“The Advertiser would like to apologise to Holly and her family for any inconvenience or distress this error has caused.”
Editor Glenn Ebrey said the paper had taken immediate action as soon as it was made aware of the error, which included sending posters to all sales outlets.
He said: “As soon as we were made aware that the photograph on our front page was incorrect we took immediate action, to make sure our readership were aware of the mistake.
“This included publishing an immediate clarification on our website and also sending posters explaining our error to sales outlets, which were put up alongside the usual newspaper bills. A full clarification and apology will also appear in this week’s paper.
“On behalf of the Advertiser, I would like to restate my apologies to Holly Judge and her family for any upset or distress our error may have caused.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
The same Croydon Advertiser which confused £50k of cuts with £500k and then refused to apologise last week?
Report this comment
d’oh
Report this comment
Whoops.
Is this the same Croydon Advertiser which was taken to the PCC becuase it refused to apologise when its reporter could not tell the difference between £50,000 and £500,000?
Is there a pattern emerging?
Report this comment
Isn’t this the same paper featured last week regarding a PCC dispute?
Report this comment
Send a boy to do a man’s job…
Report this comment
The way our regional press is run at the moment almost guarantees a chapter of accidents.
Report this comment
Does anyone care though? Driving experience out of news rooms to drive down costs was always going to lead to blunders like this, then the ensuing lack of credibility, drop in sales, loss of revenue etc. People must have known these were the likely consequences but as far as I can see, don’t seem that bothered.
Report this comment
Which Holy Judge did the apology go to? What about the other one? Was the picture taken off Facebook?
Report this comment
So are we going to be told hoe the mistake happened? Like Confused says, I suspect it was simply lifted off Facebook.
Report this comment
Bit of bad luck.
How many Holly Judges can there be in Croydon?
Report this comment
Two, I suggest!
Report this comment
The splash pic wasn’t particularly high-res so I guess it was taken from a website.
The next time a newsdesk files a picture lifted from a social network, any other website or a ‘mate’s’ mobile phone, and I hear a hack bleating as I give them the Spanish Inquisition over the image’s validity, I will forward this article to them.
Cheers.
Report this comment
@Billy Boy
You seem to be quite the apologist for this slapdash reporter. Is it you that actually wrote the story? Are you an actual reporter? and if so when are you handing in your notice?
Not bothered? This is someone’s daughter. Her parents may have seen this go online and worried themselves sick. There are two people who will care. And you, if you are indeed a reporter, should care because it makes you, me and the rest of our gang look like idiots. This has got nothing to do with experience or costs. It has everything to do with checking your facts. We all know what they say about assumptions don’t we.
Report this comment
Rambo,
I think you need to read my comment again.
Report this comment