Dwyer Family and the News of the World
Complaint
A complaint was received from a representative of the Dwyer family regarding an article published in the News of the World on 19 April 2009 regarding the death of their son, Michael, in controversial circumstances in Bolivia. The family complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals.
In a detailed response, the newspaper stated that it was clear from the reference on the front page piece that the “full story” appeared on two pages inside the newspaper, and that the inside article stated that the information came from “... a top Bolivian police source ...”. It argued that its readers would understand that these “facts” were based on the material in the article. It further argued that the photograph complained of was obtained legitimately, having been posted on the deceased’s bebo website, and that given the unprecedented manner of the deceased’s death in politically controversial circumstances it was inevitable that the normal considerations about sympathy in circumstances of personal grief or shock would not apply.
Decision
The family complained that the newspaper did not strive for truth and accuracy in the publication of a front page headline that read “Assassin hired by drug lord”, in a prominent sub-headline on the same page that stated that the late Mr Dwyer was paid by a Colombian cocaine dealer to kill the President of Bolivia, and in a dramatic headline inside the newspaper, occupying about half of the space devoted to the article concerned, that read “Dwyer was total fantasist who lied about his past to get €100k for hit on the president”.
As there is insufficient evidence available to ascertain the accuracy or otherwise of the statements complained of, no decision can be made on whether or not the statements in question breached Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.
The issue that arises under Principle 2 in relation to the specific statements complained about is whether the reporting as facts, in the headlines and lead paragraphs, of unconfirmed reports taken almost verbatim from an anonymous source quoted in the body of the article, was a breach of the Code of Practice, or whether their attribution later in the article was sufficient to avoid confusion.
It is possible, in any fast-breaking news story, that the best available information may include unconfirmed reports. The requirement of the Code of Practice is that these should be reported as such, and not as if they were fact. In this case, the newspaper maintained that its readers would understand that any allegations of fact were innately predicated on the information the newspaper had received from the various sources referred to. However, the grounds for this assertion are not self-evident, and the complaint itself is evidence that it is not the case here. Journalistic conventions, although they may embody previous custom and practice, now also need to be considered in the light of any relevant provisions of the Code of Practice.
In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, the presentation in the headlines of unconfirmed reports as fact breached Principle 2 of the Code of Practice, and the complaint in respect of Principle 2 is therefore upheld.
There was no evidence that the newspaper did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information complained about, or that the information published was based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, in breach of Principles 3 and 4.
In relation to the complaint under Principle 5, the opinion of the Press Ombudsman is that the legitimate public interest generated by the initial public accusations about Mr Dwyer made by the Bolivian government, and the consequent international and national ramifications of the events and allegations concerned, was sufficient to justify publication under the terms of this Principle.
As there is no evidence that the image of the late Mr Dwyer published by the paper was not already in the public domain, the complaint in that respect is not upheld.
13 August 2009
The Newspaper appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.