AddThis SmartLayers

Editor hits out at ‘questionable’ crash pic ruling

A daily editor has questioned how far the Press Complaints Commission should go in preventing the publication of dramatic photographs after a complaint against his newspaper was upheld.

Peter Barron, editor of the Northern Echo, was speaking out about the implications of last week’s ruling which was upheld on the grounds that the newspaper had now shown enough sensitivity in publishing the photo.

Writing in his ‘From the editor’s chair’ column, Peter called the PCC’s ruling ‘controversial and ‘questionable’.

The picture was of a glider pilot being treated for injuries following a crash which had been sent to the paper by the Cleveland Search and Rescue Team who had not sought the injured man’s consent.

The newspaper had checked with the police that the man’s injuries were not life-threatening before making the decision to use the photo.

However his wife argued that it broke Clause Five of the Editor’s Code of Conduct on intrusion into grief and shock, and the PCC upheld her complaint.

Wrote Peter: “It not only has major implications for news organisations reporting breaking news stories, but rescue organisations which rely on public goodwill and charity.

“The Northern Echo had no way of contacting the pilot and, to this day, we have received no direct contact from him or his family, complaining about our actions.

“He was unidentified and not a local man. It is true that the photographer, from the search and rescue team, could have sought his consent, but that was not in our control.”

He adds that the paper could have masked the man’s face and, in the light of the ruling from the PCC, perhaps that is what editors will now have to do.

Questioning where the line is drawn he recalled a story in September when the Echo published pictures of students injured after a double-decker bus crashed into a low bridge in Darlington.

The images were more graphic than the picture of the glider pilot, but attracted neither complaint nor censure.

He adds: “In the light of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking, the Press Complaints Commission is under pressure like never before. It has an undeniably difficult job to perform, but the commissioners have months to come to a conclusion, while editors often have just minutes.

“We live in an age of 24-hour news, with mobile phone technology turning millions of people into on-the-spot photographers, and with Twitter, Facebook and YouTube enabling instant publishing.

“Knowing where to draw the line will only become more difficult.”

Read the full article here.

7 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • February 22, 2012 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    Jeez. We might as well all pack up and go home. It looks like anything more dramatic than a cheque presentation or a charity bike rides will be jumped on by the quivering PCC as intrusion.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 22, 2012 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    What Mr Barron has not mentioned is that the person involved in the crash consented to a BBC film crew who were with the search and rescue team (or Air Ambulance I forget) on the day to both film and identify him.

    Yet a picture in a paper where he does not live is an intrusion into his privacy, grief and shock.

    No wonder people think the PCC is a joke.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 22, 2012 at 11:19 am
    Permalink

    Terrible ruling. Yet when all the nationals carry Gaddafi’s bloody face or pics of a woman with her face hanging off after 7/7 that is ok.
    One rule for the nationals another for regionals.
    This happened in a public place I take it, so now newspapers have to not use pics that you can guarantee will be going viral on Twitter or posted on Facebook in seconds.
    This complaint should have been thrown out the instant they found out about the BBC bit.
    Nonsense.
    (is there an appeal system?)

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 22, 2012 at 11:19 am
    Permalink

    Good on you, Pete. Your response echoes my comments on this site when the original PCC ruling was made. I can imagine the fuss being made if the PCC had ruled against, say, the Daily Mail for printing pix of blood-covered victims of a terrorist attack in London (as all nationals did, quite correctly, at the time of 7/7). It seems that in the new climate of Leveson, they are happy to pick on easier targets.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 22, 2012 at 11:30 am
    Permalink

    When the PCC has authority to adjucate on the thousands of images and videos etc which are posted each day on social media such as Facebook and YouTube then it will have some credibility. Get real PCC, as Peter says, we live in age of 24 hours a day publication where everybody has instant acess to the news should they want it. If it’s OK to put something on YouTube or Facebook then newspapers and their websites should be allowed to operate by the same rules.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 22, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    Permalink

    What happened here is the Cleveland Search and Rescue Team photographer reasonably assumed consent for publication of his photograph was given, as the casualty had already given consent to the BBC, otherwise, in common with the policy of most (if not all) search and rescue charities, the picture wouldn’t have been released, to avoid this exact scenario. I wonder what the PCC ruling would have been had the photograph been taken by a staff photographer, or even a member of the public, who would have no requirement to even ask for consent, given that far ‘worse’ photographs are regularly published without comment.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)