I hope that the Estate will consider taking action via the
UK Press Complaints Commission.
This is the Editors Code of practice, and a link to the details
THE editors' CODE
All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.
It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.
It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.
Editors should co-operate swiftly with the Press Complaints Commission in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must publish the adjudication in full and with due prominence agreed by the Commission's Director, including headline reference to the PCC.
Accuracy
i)
The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
There is more at the link
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
It seems that the writer of the 'Sunday People' article, James Desborough, has been taken to the Press complaints commission before, and the paper made to apologise ( This was in relation to a Brad Pitt /Angelina Jolie story.
On January 23rd 2010, a London newspaper “News of the World” published a misleading article declaring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were visiting divorce lawyers and had agreed to divide their fortune and share custody of their six children. The article, written by journalist James Desborough, sparked a global media frenzy and the story was re-published around the world.
However, Angelina and Brad vehemently denied these allegations and took the matter to the high court in London, suing News Group Newspapers - the News International subsidiary that publishes the News of the World - for contravening the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct. They claimed the article was misleading, inaccurate and intrusive, adding “that publication of the story amounted to a serious misuse of private information”.
Proving that the story was indeed an unethical one, News of the World was made to formally apologise to the couple and pay defamation damages.
In all organisational practice there is a need for a chain of accountability. Journalism as a profession is fraught with a myriad of ethical dilemmas. To ascertain whether certain actions are ethical or unethical we must dissect the decision making process undertaken by journalists, editors and publishers and compare these processes to the professional codes and practices put in place to maintain ethical conduct.
According to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, Desborough acted unethically according to the principle of reversibility (Breit, 2007). In the decision making process of whether or not to write the story, Desborough does not appear to act in a way that he would wish to be treated. Desborough wrote a story that was inaccurate and not properly researched. It affected the couple involved in an emotional and professional way, which in a reversed situation, I assume Desborough would not want done to him. He has disregarded Angelina and Brad’s individual right to privacy because of his belief that the public’s collective right to know outweighs individual rights. This action neglects the principle of respect for others and illustrates how Desborough capitalised upon the misfortune of others as a means for him to potentially get a scoop in the end. Furthermore, I assume that these decisions and the action of publicizing inaccurate information would not be welcomed as universalizeable by Desborough.
You can see more details here:
http://s41763698.blogspot.co.uk/
