The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Meath Chronicle took sufficient remedial action in relation to a complaint that it breached Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice. The complainant said the publication breached Principle 5.3 of the Code of Practice because without consulting or notifying the family it published an obituary and photograph of his son who had lost his life.
The complainant said he had found out the article was published by accident and was shocked. He said that the family’s “right to privacy and choice was taken away” at a sensitive time. He said that while the funeral was online and the notification was published on RIP.ie, the family had intended the mass to reach mourners who knew their son “and not the extended county”. He said the family regarded the published obituary as “simply a page filler”.
The publication responded that it regularly published articles about people who had died in the communities it served. It said it did not regard these pieces as page fillers. It said its practice was to watch the live streaming of a mass “which is of course open to all” and to look at the published notice on RIP.ie. It said that “we do not generally approach the family as this can often be regarded as particularly disrespectful and insensitive”. It said this was in keeping with Principle 5.3 of the Code which states that “sympathy and discretion must be shown at all times in seeking information in situations of personal grief or shock”.
It said that it was conscious of taking the feelings of grieving families into account as also required under Principle 5.3 of the Code but acknowledged that the complainant did not think that it had done so. The publication noted that it had received a letter from the complainant shortly after the article was published and had apologised immediately for the distress it had caused. It had acceded to the complainant’s request to remove his son’s photograph from the server. In response to the formal complaint subsequently made to the Press Ombudsman it repeated its apology.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes that the complainant wrote to the publication two days after the obituary for his son appeared expressing his shock and asking: “Did it cross your mind that we might have had something to say on the tragic passing of our son?”.
The Press Ombudsman notes the publication’s assertion that it is its normal practice not to approach families in these circumstances and accepts that the reasons stated are in keeping with the intentions of Principle 5. She accepts that the publication believed it was complying with the Code. However, she also finds the question posed by the complainant very powerful.
The publication was swift to apologise when informed that the obituary had caused the family distress. It admitted that “in hindsight we should have made contact with you”. It said it had chosen what it felt was the best way to handle the situation and concluded: “We apologise and should have reached out to you”. It agreed to remove the photograph as requested, and offered to speak or meet with the complainant.
As pointed out by the complainant, nothing that the publication agreed to do in the aftermath of publishing the obituary could undo the distress that had already been caused to the family. In terms of the Code of Practice, the Press Ombudsman finds that its apology, its removal of the photograph, and its acceptance in hindsight that it should have reached out to the family, constituted sufficient remedial action.
However, she urges the publication, and indeed other publications, to learn from this. When making decisions about how to show respect for the feelings of bereaved families under Principle 5 of the Code, she suggests that publications should at least give serious consideration to the heartfelt question raised by the complainant in this instance.
In making these remarks, the Press Ombudsman does not wish to be directive. She is well aware that these are matters for editorial discretion.
18 July 2025