AddThis SmartLayers

Press watchdog orders regional daily to re-publish correction

IPSO_logo_newA regional daily was ordered to re-publish a correction after the press regulator ruled it had not initially been printed far enough forward in the newspaper.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation ruled the Belfast Telegraph had failed to give due prominence to its admission of an inaccuracy in a story which appeared on page four of the paper.

The correction, published after Andrew Carroll complained to the Bel Tel, was printed on page 12.

Unsatisfied with this remedial action, Mr Carroll complained to IPSO under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Sam’s Yer Man’ director sells home as police probe suspicions his firm was sunk by employee fraud,” published on 5 August 2015.

The paper reported that Sam Duff Jnr, a director of S&R Electrics Limited – a Belfast electronic goods retailer popularly known as ‘Sam’s Yer Man’ – had put his house up for sale after the business had recently closed down and been placed into administration.

The story was accompanied by a photograph of the house in question, as well as a description of the property, its location and the asking price.

Mr Carroll said the newspaper’s report was inaccurate because he was, in fact, the owner of the property, and Sam Duff Jnr was his tenant.

After the article’s publication he had taken the property off the market on the advice of his estate agent and also hired security staff after the property had been visited by creditors of S&R Electrics.

He further added the publication of a photograph of his house alongside the original article, and the subsequent publication in a correction to the article of his name as the owner of the property, represented an intrusion into his privacy.

The Bel Tel accepted had breached Mr Carroll’s privacy, and that the article had been inaccurate.

In researching the story, its journalist had checked the filing history for S&R Electrics on the Companies House website and found the home address of Sam Duff Jnr.

The journalist then did a Google search of the address and discovered that the house was listed for sale.

Details of the property from the Google search, as well as the photographs, were then published in the article.

No other checks were made in relation to the property.

Having been contacted by the complainant on the day the article was published, the newspaper issued corrections, both in print and online, on the following day.

However, Mr Carroll was unsatisfied with this as the correction appeared on page 12, when the original story had appeared on page four.

IPSO agreed with Mr Carroll in its ruling, finding the correction’s prominence was “not sufficient”.

The Committee also added the Bel Tel had failed to take care over the article’s accuracy.

IPSO accepted the original correction had been published in good faith and recognised the inaccuracy, but ruled it should be re-published on page four with the word “correction” appearing in the headline.

The complaint was upheld under Clause 1, and the full adjudication can be read here.

7 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • October 20, 2015 at 9:28 am
    Permalink

    Cutbacks, not doing a proper job, taking shortrcuts etc etc

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • October 20, 2015 at 10:32 am
    Permalink

    Or may be there is a touch of arrogance and a good job there is a press regulator who can step in? Well done IPSO for a measure that does help the reader without hitting the paper financially.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • October 20, 2015 at 11:40 am
    Permalink

    So the paper wouldn’t stump up the £4 required for a Land Registry search? That could have saved a few red faces.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • October 20, 2015 at 1:28 pm
    Permalink

    Crappy journalism is forgivable. Lack of proper contrition from the editor and willingness to properly hold their hands up when they got it wrong, less so.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • October 20, 2015 at 4:07 pm
    Permalink

    All corrections should be on the same page as the original story, providing it is practical. And that applies to page one as well!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • October 20, 2015 at 4:36 pm
    Permalink

    The editor has to carry the can for this one. Shoddy.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • October 20, 2015 at 11:37 pm
    Permalink

    I do think newspaper offices now are ripe for psychologists to explore.

    Short term pressure – deadlines, no staff, culture of sensationalism

    Medium term pressure – sales forecasts for the month, next cycle of ABCs, ad reps pressuring a little more erosion in standards for a valued client

    Long term pressure: job security, organisational survival, and what is the use of ambition in a dying industry?

    The perks, status and kudos have gone. When I worked at the East Anglian Daily Times it was in working memory, as it were, that journalist drink drivers were driven home by the police such was the respect for them, the paper and the influence they had. Not that I approve of drink drivers, far from it, but the symbolism…

    I loved hearing these great stories of regional journalists – you must let me tell you the one about an Hawaiian shirt, a Cambridgeshire fighter jet and President Nixon – but where is that now?

    And so to this. Awful reporting, awful response, and yet I am sure neither the editor or the journalist are bad people. They are good people under the most awful pressure.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)