APPENDIX 91
Memorandum submitted by Mrs Wendy Carruthers
COMMENTS ON PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
I had cause to complain, on behalf of my mother
and father-in-law, to the PCC following an article that had appeared
on the front page of the Evening News and Star newspaper.
The report contained information about a RTA
where the driver subsequently died. My in-laws' connection was
that they were the owners of the property where the victim lived.
The article stated as much and also that they were not contactable
as they were away on holiday—these were the parts that I
complained about as these items bore no relevance to the article,
invaded their privacy and put their property at risk from potential
burglars as the article publicised the fact that they were away.
My complaint to the PCC was handled in a reasonable
manner but could have been handled in a more satisfactory way.
The whole episode left my in-laws feeling as if they had been
invaded and abused and no one admitted that they had got it wrong
or apologised.
At the onset of the complaint I was asked what
I required as an outcome not what was on offer as a solution.
Eventually the editor agreed to publish a letter
on the letters page stating that reporters and sub-editors should
be more responsible for what they write as this can have far-reaching
consequences.
Two paragraphs on page four compared to a front-page
story hardly seems weighted in our favour.
I feel that pre-defined sanctions/penalties
could address issues such as these. In my opinion the PCC does
not act as a satisfactory regulatory body for the press. The press
continue to report items incorrectly, invade privacy and cause
problems to private citizens. Once they have been printed the
damage has been done, even if a retraction is offered it is never
on an equal basis.
The PCC needs to be given more "teeth"
to actually instigate change rather than just pay lip service
to an otherwise unregulated powerful organisation.
2 February 2003
| 
