Pauline Gorman - IPSO Complaint Upheld

FOLLOWING an article published in the Daily Star on May 24, 2017, headlined SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS, Pauline Gorman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Star breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Daily Star to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

On its front page, the newspaper had published a number of photographs of individuals who had died, or were missing, following the terror attack which took place at a pop concert in the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017.

One of the photographs was of the complainant’s daughter, with the caption: “MISSING: Lucy Cross.”

The complainant said that her 13-yearold daughter was not missing: her daughter, who is not called Lucy Cross, had been at home at the time of the attack. The publication of her daughter’s photograph in this context had intruded into her daughter’s private and family life, as well as her time at school.

The day after publication, the newspaper had published a front-page reference to a Page 2 apology for the inaccuracy. It said that it had obtained the story from an agency, which had been misled by a Twitter account that had posted a photograph of the complainant’s daughter with the false name and claim that she was missing.

The newspaper said that at the time of publication, it had no reason to believe the information was false.

The newspaper had relied upon information obtained from a trusted agency; in doing so, the newspaper published material which had inaccurately claimed that the complainant’s daughter was missing.

This had resulted in the publication of inaccurate material relating to the complainant’s daughter, without consent, which had intruded into her private life and her time at school.

Newspapers play an important role in reporting on the aftermath of a terror attack and raising awareness of the real impact of such incidents on members of the public.

In this instance, however, there was no public interest in publishing the inaccurate claim that the complainant’s daughter was missing.

The complaints under Clause 2 and Clause 6 were upheld.