A weekly newspaper has apologised and said it will review how reporters are trained to deal with sensitive stories after a complaint over a tribute piece.
Teresa Kendal complained to the Press Complaints Commission after an article was published in the Braintree and Witham Times in April about the death of her nephew in a motorbike accident.
She said the article was both inaccurate and insensitive, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complaint was resolved when the editor of the paper wrote privately to Ms Kendal and published a correction, which stated it would review its procedures and training for reporters in dealing with such stories.
The correction said: “We would like to make it clear that Ryan Gibbons tragically died at the scene of a motorbike accident in Tye Green on April 16 and not in hospital, as was stated in the article, Son with passion for motorbikes mourned, published in the April 18 issue of the Braintree and Witham Times.
“The inaccuracy was as the result of incorrect information being supplied to us by the East of Anglian Ambulance Service. We would like to apologise for the error and for the distress it caused Ryan’s family.
“We are also reviewing our procedures and training of reporters for dealing with sensitive stories, and will take any action necessary.”
Other recent PCC cases involving regional newspapers include:
McArdle v Rochdale Observer
Mrs Shelley McArdle complained that an article which reported her nephew’s recent court case in which he was charged with fraud breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. She was particularly concerned by the claim that her parents had secretly raised Mr Travis as their own son.
The newspaper responded stating that it had been in correspondence with the complainant prior to her complaint to the PCC, and it had already published a clarification statement.
Following further correspondence between the parties, the complainant indicated that she was happy to resolve the matter on the basis of the previous published wording.
Saunders v Western Gazette
Mrs Elly Saunders complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code that an article reporting on her estranged husband’s assault conviction had misled readers as to the seriousness of the offence, wrongly portraying the assault as a trivial incident.
The matter was resolved when the editor wrote privately to the complainant.
Slater v Nelson Leader
Mrs Sue Slater complained that a reader’s letter contained inaccurate information regarding her remuneration package from her employer, Pendle Leisure Trust, in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
While the newspaper accepted that the information regarding the complainant’s remuneration was incorrect, it denied that the letter was capable of raising a breach of Clause 3.
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification and apology:
“A letter headed ‘Inquiry needed’ that was published in Leader Times newspapers inferred that Pendle Leisure Trust operations manager Sue Slater was paid ‘big bucks and had a top-of-the-range company car’.
“We would like to point out that the reference to her remuneration was factually incorrect and apologise for any embarrassment or distress caused to Sue Slater and her family.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Wow, and in their correction they got the name of the East of England Ambulance service wrong. Doesn’t fill you with confidence about their procedures.
Report this comment
Could have been worse…..the East Anglican Ambulance Service
Report this comment
Why should they review their entire training programme because the ambulance service got their facts wrong?
If you want to know the time and place at which someone was pronounced dead following a motorcycle accident, who do you go to? The ambulance service.
What is the inference here? That this reporter should have gone to the family and had them sign off on his story? And why would he be asking the family for details like this? The family would not have been present, whereas the paramedics were.
I can see why the deceased’s relatives would be upset by the inaccuracy, but I really fail to see why, in this case, it is the reporter’s fault and I certainly cannot see any reason at all for this newspaper to review its training procedure.
What is the new procedure going to be? ‘When someone dies in a motorcycle accident, be sure to source all information about the circumstances of the death second-hand from the deceased’s confused, traumatised relatives, who were not present at the scene. Treat their second-hand account as being far more reliable than that of the paramedics who actually attended.’
Report this comment
Call me insensitive if you wish, but does it matter if someone died at the scene of an accident or in hospital? Most accident victims are declared dead at hospitals because there are doctors there. Is this really an issue for the Press Complaints Commission? I suspect the family were upset because a story appeared in the local paper which is a totally separate issue and nothing to do with the PCC.
Report this comment
CTHo, I do agree with you entirely on that. An error in a correction always looks awful tho!
Report this comment
The company I work for now has a policy on inquests that we will not do leads from hearings unless we have the family’s blessing.
I am not joking either!
If they refuse to speak or do not turn up to the inquest then we do a couple of pars with very, very toned down info.
To be fair there have been a lot of recent judgements of reporters accurately and fairly reporting inquest details then the PCC ruling they have been insensitive.
Bosses are now in constant fear of appearing on pages like this, or worse.
Report this comment
How depressing, that editors are now barring reporters from covering public hearings unless they get permission from family members, who almost never want anything in the paper.
Not a smart precedent to be setting.
Report this comment
House Rules – I wonder how long before other public proceedings in courts are deemed off limits if those participating don’t give their blessing.
I’m sure there’s something about justice being seen to be done, and an inquest court is as much about justice as a criminal court.
It’s a shame bosses don’t have the wherewithal to defend their journalists to the PCC over ridiculous privacy rulings (?) on public court reports.
Report this comment
Fascinating, House Rules. Next we shall be asking shoplifters if they would mind having their names in the paper! The PCC needs sorting out. Firstly it seems to operate two sets of rules: one for the nationals and one for local papers. Plenty of examples of that around.
Then the dimwits at the PCC seem to think that a complaint is valid if it upsets somebody. Come off it! Running an account of a fatal road accident is not an instrusion into shock and grief in itself. The accident is a matter of public concern and the Press has a duty to report the incident and inquest proceeedings. You don’t have to exagerate the details or make the story over-dramatic but at the moment the PCC seems to think its role is to obstruct journalists doing their job. It is time the Newspaper Society and/or the Society of Editors stood up for their journalists.
Report this comment
The fact that the PCC believes reporting on a death on a public highway is an intrusion into shock and grief is deeply alarming.
RE: Inquests – one Essex coroner has a habit of inviting members of the family in to meet him for 20 minutes while the press are excluded, then letting the press in for a four minute inquest.
I was at an inquest recently with another journo who doesn’t usually cover that patch. Coroner invited the family in for an hour-long meeting, then held an eight-minute inquest. She was tearing her hair out but we’re used to that coroner’s antics and our various attempts to amend the situation have fallen flat. It is highly unorthodox, if not outright illegal.
What is the definitive rule on coroners meeting the relatives of the deceased in the courtroom for an hour while the press is excluded? Is the coroner even supposed to meet the family before the inquest at all?
Report this comment