AddThis SmartLayers

North East daily rapped over plane crash pic

A regional daily newspaper has been rapped by the Press Complaints Commission for publishing a picture of a glider pilot receiving treatment after crashing into a field.

The Northern Echo published the photograph on its website following the accident near Appleton Wiske, North Yorkshire, on 4 July last year, and in the newspaper the following day.

However the victim’s wife complained that the picture amounted to intrusion into grief or shock under Clause Five of the Editor’s Code of Practice.

The PCC upheld the complaint saying that the man should not have been photographed while “in a state of shock and upset.”

The complainant, Mrs Leigh Blows, said the picture had been taken without consent on private land at a time when her husband had been in severe shock and pain.

She said her husband, who had not been named in the story, had been clearly identifiable in the photograph through his facial features, clothing and the tail number of his glider, leading to a number of distressing telephone calls from friends

The newspaper explained that the images had been supplied by the search and rescue team, which had provided similar images of such scenes over a number of years to publicise its work.

It also pointed out that parts of the rescue had been filmed by the BBC and subsequently broadcast with consent, although the complainant said that the film crew had specifically obtained consent to record the treatment at the time.

In its adjudication, the Commission emphasised that it had strong regard for the important role of newspapers in informing their readers about significant events in the public interest, and acknowledged that the newspaper’s pursuit of the story was legitimate.

However it said it was “not persuaded that the publication of a revealing photograph of a person receiving medical treatment, published so soon after the accident without consent, could be said reasonably to be sensitive.”

PCC director Stephen Abell said: “Ultimately, whilst newspapers are entitled to report matters of relevance to readers, they need to ensure that publication is handled sensitively in line with the requirement of the Code.

“The Commission decided that in publishing a photograph of a man in a state of shock and upset, the newspaper fell short of this requirement on this occasion. It has upheld the complaint as a result.”

6 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • February 16, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    Yet another daft decision from the PCC. Surprise, surprise it did not pick a fight with the BBC and its skilled lawyers. Crashing a glider is a distressing event, I am sure. How do you publish a “happy” picture of such an event? The paper did not even name the pilot. Why not? It should have done. This is an incident of considerable public interest. Anyone think of the grief and distress caused to a passing motorist or innocent bystander if this pilot had dropped his glider on them? The thought of giving more power to these idiots at the PCC (with its habit of going for “soft” targets) is frightening. Enough is enough.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    Permalink

    Another ridiculous Leveson-influenced decision. Does that mean all the 7/7 and 9/11 pix were wrong to be used?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    Permalink

    Don’t be stupid Chris. Of course the 7/7 and 9/11 pix should not have been used. Some were taken on private property and they caused grief and distress… not the terrorists’ bombs! Enough is enough. We have now got to the pitch where happy pictures of school sports days or plays cannot be used without the written permission of the parents. What a sad reflection on our society and its jobsworth culture.
    The PCC needs reminding that the Press is merely an extension of the public. The public’s rights are our rights. No more, no less. And broadly speaking the Press has a duty to ask the “awkward” questions the public wants answered.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    Permalink

    Interesting too that the Echo reports a “lucky escape”. Hardly an intrusion!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • February 21, 2012 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    Is it really too much to ask for a little consistency from the PCC? Sometimes I wonder whether the critics are right and journalists should have a set of hard and fast rules that they obey or risk sanction. Currently the PCC’s decisions are far too arbitary and open to members’ own, subjective, interpretation… and I suspect on which side of the bed they got out of on decision day.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)