Parents and The Corkman

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint that an article published in The Corkman breached Principle 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it did not take sufficiently into account the feelings of a family grieving over the death of their son by suicide.

The parents of the young man complained about the distress caused to them by the publication of a report of the inquest into their son’s death. Although the report did not name the parents or their son, it published the text of the young man’s final communication to his mother – a text message sent just prior to his death– and graphically reported details of his mother’s distress as this message was read out as evidence at the inquest.

The newspaper responded that its report was meant to highlight important issues surrounding suicide, and that it saw reporting about suicide as a vital element in the battle to reduce the incidence of suicide. It said that the only way to ensure complete anonymity would be to publish no details at all of such matters, which in its view would be unacceptable. It said its policy was to be particularly sensitive in such matters and not to name the families involved
.
The editor, in the course of the conciliation process, acknowledged in a personal letter to the complainants that the article had clearly added to their grief and upset, but this was not acceptable to the complainants as a resolution to their complaint.

They said that they did not understand why their son’s death had been, as they saw it, ‘singled out’ for publication, and that the detail published made it obvious which family was involved. They said they felt victimized, as if they had in some way committed a wrong, and asked the Press Ombudsman to seriously consider their request that newspapers should be asked to refrain from publishing details of the outcome of inquests in cases of this nature in future.

It is clear that newspapers have a legal right to publish any evidence given at coroners’ inquests. However, what they decide to publish also needs to be considered in the light of the Code of Practice. In this case, the publication of the text message from the complainants’ son, and the gratuitous publication of a description of the mother’s distress as it was being read out, was a clear breach of the requirements of Principle 5.3 of the Code of Practice to take the feelings of grieving families into account. The complaint is therefore upheld.

The wider issue which the complainants asked the Press Ombudsman to consider, of the extent and manner of publication of reports on suicide inquests, is not amenable to detailed prescription. Editors and journalists will always have difficult choices to make as they exercise, in such cases, the discretion which is an essential component of their profession. The values inherent in Principle 5.3 of the Code of Practice, and the useful guidelines published by the Samaritans, will always be relevant in this regard.

27 April 2012