Mirror cleared over Kelly complaint
Stephen Brook, press correspondentMonday March 26, 2007MediaGuardian.co.uk
The Press Complaints Commission has vindicated the Daily Mirror for revealing that Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, decided to send her child to a private school.
Ms Kelly, took the Mirror to the PCC in January for revealing that she had opted to send her son, who has special needs, to a private school.
The story was broken by the Mail on Sunday on its front page in January, but the paper did not name Ms Kelly, identifying her only as a cabinet minister.
The following day the Mirror became the first media outlet to identify her by name and the rest of the media followed suit.
The Mirror was the only newspaper that Ms Kelly took action against.
"My sole concern throughout has been the welfare of my young son. I believe his right to privacy has been breached," she said in a statement at the time of her complaint.
In response, Richard Wallace, the editor of the Mirror, said: "We are confident that it was entirely right that we identify Ms Kelly so the public could decide whether her action was appropriate, given that they were clearly at odds with government policy."
Clause 6i of the PCC code states that "young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion".
But under its definition of the public interest, the code states: "In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interest of the child."
Ms Kelly argued that, by naming her, the Mirror had identified her child and interfered with his ability to attend his new school. She did not consider that the article served the public interest to the extent required by the code.
The Mirror said that it did not report the child's name, age and gender, nor the identity of the school.
The PCC said Ms Kelly, a previous education minister, had "understandable concerns" for her child's welfare but that the Mirror article highlighted a subject of "considerable public interest".
It said that Ms Kelly's removal of her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate.
"The fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs (including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling)," the PCC said.
"The commission concluded that the newspaper had, in its handling of the story, correctly balanced the public's right to know on the one hand with the child's right to privacy on the other.
"Care had been taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the child's private life. As a result, it ruled that there was no breach of clause 6 (Children) of the code. The complaint was not upheld."
The Daily Mirror editor, Richard Wallace, said the PCC ruling was "gratifying".
"It was most regrettable that a complaint was made to the PCC in the first place, over a story that was quite clearly of the highest public interest," he said.
"However, the commission's unanimous decision to reject the complaint - and its decision that naming Ruth Kelly was 'necessary' in the context of a story which was 'a matter of considerable public interest' - is gratifying.
"As the Daily Mirror said at the time, when it comes to important issues the public has a right to know whether politicians are as sound in deed as they are in word."
Ms Kelly said she was "very disappointed" by the PCC ruling.
"I have always accepted the scrutiny, both personal and political, which comes with being a politician and minister," she said.
"But this case was not about me but about a nine-year-old child. I brought the complaint because I do not see why the protection that the code rightly gives to children in general should not extend to the children of politicians.
"My sole intention throughout was to protect my son."
In its ruling, the PCC said Ms Kelly's concerns about the effect that publishing the article would have on her child were "entirely understandable".
It said that in reaching a decision on her complaint, it had to decide whether the newspaper struck an "appropriate balance" between avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of the child and publishing a story which served the public interest.
My Comments: Yet again the media is digging to keep into issues that really do not concern the public. I think that the media really need to step out of people's private space, especially when its concerning a disabled child, and making it public knowledge.. how is that helping the public :S There was no need for the media to pin point names and gender etc... i think more important matters should be addressed rather than making people feel sorry for diabled children.. treat them like normal. yes people with disabilities need to educate the public but..this was just out of order! it was her job as the mother to protect her child, the media should not have intruded on that privacy and decision from the mother. Updates on the war, the global state of the world are issues wihch neeed to be addressed more!!!
Stephen Brook, press correspondentMonday March 26, 2007MediaGuardian.co.uk
The Press Complaints Commission has vindicated the Daily Mirror for revealing that Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, decided to send her child to a private school.
Ms Kelly, took the Mirror to the PCC in January for revealing that she had opted to send her son, who has special needs, to a private school.
The story was broken by the Mail on Sunday on its front page in January, but the paper did not name Ms Kelly, identifying her only as a cabinet minister.
The following day the Mirror became the first media outlet to identify her by name and the rest of the media followed suit.
The Mirror was the only newspaper that Ms Kelly took action against.
"My sole concern throughout has been the welfare of my young son. I believe his right to privacy has been breached," she said in a statement at the time of her complaint.
In response, Richard Wallace, the editor of the Mirror, said: "We are confident that it was entirely right that we identify Ms Kelly so the public could decide whether her action was appropriate, given that they were clearly at odds with government policy."
Clause 6i of the PCC code states that "young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion".
But under its definition of the public interest, the code states: "In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interest of the child."
Ms Kelly argued that, by naming her, the Mirror had identified her child and interfered with his ability to attend his new school. She did not consider that the article served the public interest to the extent required by the code.
The Mirror said that it did not report the child's name, age and gender, nor the identity of the school.
The PCC said Ms Kelly, a previous education minister, had "understandable concerns" for her child's welfare but that the Mirror article highlighted a subject of "considerable public interest".
It said that Ms Kelly's removal of her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate.
"The fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs (including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling)," the PCC said.
"The commission concluded that the newspaper had, in its handling of the story, correctly balanced the public's right to know on the one hand with the child's right to privacy on the other.
"Care had been taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the child's private life. As a result, it ruled that there was no breach of clause 6 (Children) of the code. The complaint was not upheld."
The Daily Mirror editor, Richard Wallace, said the PCC ruling was "gratifying".
"It was most regrettable that a complaint was made to the PCC in the first place, over a story that was quite clearly of the highest public interest," he said.
"However, the commission's unanimous decision to reject the complaint - and its decision that naming Ruth Kelly was 'necessary' in the context of a story which was 'a matter of considerable public interest' - is gratifying.
"As the Daily Mirror said at the time, when it comes to important issues the public has a right to know whether politicians are as sound in deed as they are in word."
Ms Kelly said she was "very disappointed" by the PCC ruling.
"I have always accepted the scrutiny, both personal and political, which comes with being a politician and minister," she said.
"But this case was not about me but about a nine-year-old child. I brought the complaint because I do not see why the protection that the code rightly gives to children in general should not extend to the children of politicians.
"My sole intention throughout was to protect my son."
In its ruling, the PCC said Ms Kelly's concerns about the effect that publishing the article would have on her child were "entirely understandable".
It said that in reaching a decision on her complaint, it had to decide whether the newspaper struck an "appropriate balance" between avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of the child and publishing a story which served the public interest.
My Comments: Yet again the media is digging to keep into issues that really do not concern the public. I think that the media really need to step out of people's private space, especially when its concerning a disabled child, and making it public knowledge.. how is that helping the public :S There was no need for the media to pin point names and gender etc... i think more important matters should be addressed rather than making people feel sorry for diabled children.. treat them like normal. yes people with disabilities need to educate the public but..this was just out of order! it was her job as the mother to protect her child, the media should not have intruded on that privacy and decision from the mother. Updates on the war, the global state of the world are issues wihch neeed to be addressed more!!!
posted by Puja at 8:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home