This week, the United Kingdom Press Complaints Commission found against Pavee Point for a complaint relating to the Daily Mail’s coverage of the removal of Roma children from their families in Ireland last year.
Our complaint had argued that the Daily Mail had breached Clause 1 (accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) Of the Editors’ Code of Practice, used by many UK news outlets.
Find below the full text of the complaint decision. Pavee Point are very disappointed that thus far, no successful complaint has been made regarding the coverage of the story in late 2013. It has been mentioned even in Dáil Éireann that the media entered into a frenzy regarding these events and we had hoped that independent bodies would feel likewise.
This complaint decision highlights that the Commission made no comment regarding the Discrimination element of our complaint, because they had no contact with the family referred to. In our view, it is quite clear that the coverage of the story was discriminatory, based solely on ethnicity and il conceived notions of the Roma community.
You can view the original article produced by the Daily Mail here.
Commission’s decision in the case of
Twomey v Daily Mail
The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had reported that a seven-year-old girl had been removed from a family in Ireland amid fears that she had been abducted. The complainant was concerned that the article had included claims which were inaccurate and misleading. She also said that the identification of the race of the family had been discriminatory, in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination).
Clause 1 (Accuracy) states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.
The sub-headline had said that the child had been taken away by the police “following a major investigation”. The complainant said that this was inaccurate as there has not been a major investigation. The Commission considers headlines and sub-headlines in the context of the stories that accompany them rather than as standalone statements. The article had made clear that the police had visited a Roma community in Dublin after a member of the public had expressed concern. The Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline, taken in the context of the article as a whole, had not been significantly misleading regarding the nature of the investigation. There was no breach of the Code on this point.
The article said that “it is believed the tip-off was prompted by global coverage of the story of the child Maria, who was found in Farsala, Greece last week”. The complainant said that this was not a belief, it was a fact. While the Commission noted the complainant’s concern, the article had clearly distinguished this as conjecture. In any case, the Commission was satisfied that this had not represented a significant inaccuracy which required correction under the terms of the Code. There was no breach of the Code.
The newspaper reported that the hospital had no record of the child being born on the date provided by the family. The complainant was concerned that this was inaccurate; she said that the hospital had subsequently provided the records. The complainant also considered that it had been misleading for the coverage to refer to examples of other children who had gone missing and the case of Maria who was discovered in Greece. She said that the inclusion of this information gave the impression that the family in Ireland had been guilty of child abduction. While the Commission noted the complainant’s concern, the article had been part of the newspaper’s on-going coverage of a developing situation. As the complainant had acknowledged, the hospital had not been able to produce the documents when initially asked. The newspaper had subsequently reported that the child had been returned to her family after DNA test had proved that she was their daughter. As such, the Commission was satisfied that readers would not have been misleading into believing that the family had been guilty of child abduction. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Clause 12 (Discrimination) states that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race or colour and details of an individual’s race or colour must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. The Commission noted that it had not received a complaint from the family involved regarding this matter. Without the involvement of the family the Commission could not establish whether they considered the article to have been discriminatory. Additionally, it would not be possible to know what the family would consider as a suitable resolution to the matter. In the absence of a complaint from the family, the Commission did not comment on this issue further.
Reference no. 135328