The Sunday World has angered campaigners by publishing a photograph of a man hanging from a bridge after apparently taking his own life. Malachy Toman of the Public Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm (PIPS) told the BBC in Northern Ireland that the decision to print the photographs was “absolutely disgusting”.
He asked: “Did the editor not take into consideration how they would feel when he took the decision to publish this? Did he not sit back and think how he would feel if this was a member of his own family? Mr Toman said he would be contacting the Press Complaints Commission about the matter.
So what can the PCC do about the case? The press’ code of practice has been considerably enhanced in recent years with respect to suicide. And the code has a specific section, clause five, about intrusion into grief or shock, and 5.ii which warns editors that “when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.”
Yet the PCC’s response highlights its still limited remit. It can’t take action without a complaint from the grieving family. A PCC spokesman told Press Gazette this morning it had contacted the local police so they could pass the family of the man information on its services, however, no other decision had yet been taken in relation to the Sunday World. A complaint from Mr Toman is not enough for the PCC to take action. The PCC has no constitutional remit to investigate any newspaper article simply because of public concern.
The PCC does have the ability to give advice to an editor prior to publication – but no corresponding powers. The advice is given privately so there is no way of knowing whether its advice was sought or given in this case, the PCC has no power to criticise the editor for not seeking its advice (if the newspaper broke the code) and no way of checking whether the advice of its staff would be supported by the commission’s final judgment.
If the PCC had advised the editor in this case (either for or against publication) it could have had a bearing on the subsequent media coverage (and the reputation of the Sunday World). Would the BBC have ran the story so prominently if it had known that the PCC considered the story in the public interest? Could the PCC have defended the newspaper editor?
The PCC has no remit to consider the wider regulatory context. The Sunday World has been subject to complaints to the PCC about 18 articles in the last 13 years. Thirteen of these cases were resolved and the PCC adjudicated on five of the complaints, upholding two – both for breaches of clause one (accuracy). There has not been a previous complaint about the Sunday World’s reporting on suicide. But the PCC cannot take this into account and nor can the PCC take action against persistent offenders.
The editor of the Sunday World has justified the decision to print the photograph in three ways. Jim McDowell said: “It was in the public interest (to publish) . . . because “this poor man had been left hanging in public view for such a long time. It wasn’t meant to be voyeurism”.
In fact, the public interest defence is not a relevant consideration for breaches of clause five of the code. And the PCC ruled against the Rhondda Leader for showing insufficient sensitivity by publishing the photograph immediately after the death when neither the funeral nor the inquest had taken place.
In this case, based on pass judgments, it is not clear that the Sunday World has broken the code. The editors code book, which advises editors, states:
Photographs depicting the act of suicide would not contravene the rules requiring sensitivity in publication, if they involved only subjective matters of taste.
In the case of the suicides in Bridgend Madeleine Moon MP complained that a Sunday paper’s presentation of a piece could have encouraged copycat cases because it showed photographs of those who had died juxtaposed with a large picture of a noose under the headline Death Valleys. The newspaper, argued that the point of the presentation was to highlight the apparent happiness of the young people with the harsh reality of what they had done, and had dramatically portrayed that without glamorising suicide.
The PCC did not uphold the complaint ruling that, given the massive national and international coverage identifying hanging as a common feature of the deaths, the use of the noose picture to depict a serious and sensitive article was not excessive detail, and was not insensitive within the Code.
This case therefore acts as a reminder that with regard to complaints, the PCC is doing a difficult job well, but it is a complaints resolution body, with expectations that it can do the job of an independent self-regulator.
Most people recognise that arriving at difficult editorial decisions about sensitivity and public interest should not be the job of governments but independent experts who understand the job of putting together newspapers. And those involved with issues such as suicide recognise how much the PCC is doing, with limited resources, to explain the code and ensure reporters and editors understand how to treat stories with sensitivity.
But the PCC’s limited remit mean that though it is capable of handling complaints, it is much less capable at addressing public concern about press standards.
If the PCC can address these issues through its governance review, it will give an injection of public confidence to self-regulation and show that it is possible to make timely assessments of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour by newspapers and magazines, without the involvement of government inspectors.