The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint from a woman about an article published
in the Sunday World in March 2025. The article is about a birth which followed a teenage girl’s
concealed pregnancy. The woman is a close relative of the girl.
The woman complained that the headline was “highly misleading” under Principle 1 (Truth and
Accuracy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice because it stated that a baby, which according to
the woman was stillborn, was a “dead baby” which was “under a month old”. She said the headline
was insensitive and upsetting.
Under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code, she complained the headline
presented as fact a speculative comment about a stillbirth, implying that it could be “something of
an alternative nature”.
Under Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code, she said the article was “sensationalist in its headline at the
expense of the truth and feelings of the grieving families involved”. She said that publication of
sensitive details including the gender of the baby before the family had a chance to inform those
close to them was a “major privacy breach”.
The woman said the publication had breached Principle 9 (Children) which, she said, provided for the
protection of vulnerable children whose right to education must be preserved. She said the teenage
girl had been unable to resume her studies as a result of what she described as sensationalist,
misleading and inappropriate media coverage.
In response to the complaint, the publication stated that it had not acted contrary to the Code of
Practice. In relation to Principle 1, the publication did not in its response directly refer to the
complained of headline. It stated that the article contained information that was verified by its
sources.
On Principle 2 it stated that it did not agree that the article mixed fact and comment.
On Principle 5 it stated that it had not wanted to contact the family during a difficult time “for
obvious reasons” and that in any case the article had not identified anyone.
Under Principle 9 it stated that it did not believe the Principle was relevant to the complaint.
Decision
The complainant described the baby as having been stillborn. While it might be argued in a literal
sense that a stillborn baby is a dead baby that is under a month old, the Press Ombudsman finds that
this is not how stillbirth is actually perceived. Age is counted from the point of birth. A stillborn
baby has died during or before birth. It is not perceived to have any age. The headline of the article
suggests a quite different situation, that of a baby which was alive when born and which lived for a
period of up to a month before it died.
As is acknowledged in the article, the postmortem in this tragic case had not yet taken place at time
of publication. The Press Ombudsman finds that it is not possible in these circumstances to establish
the facts of the matter with certainty. To be accurate the headline would have to reflect this
absence of information, taking a neutral position on whether the baby was stillborn – or born alive
with its death occurring thereafter. It is unfortunate that the publication did not address this aspect
of the complaint, as the headline strikingly frames the story in a particular way. The Press
Ombudsman finds that the headline is significantly misleading in breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsman finds that the headline asserts that the baby died within its
first month of life. The article goes on to assert that this “has been confirmed”. As noted above in
relation to Principle 1, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication was not in a position to
make such an assertion. The complainant states that the baby was stillborn. The publication did not
know for a fact that the baby was born living and later died. The article acknowledged as much when
it stated that the postmortem has not yet taken place. The publication knew that its source was not
in a position to confirm the matter.
The Press Ombudsman accepts the complainant’s assertion that the headline leaves it open to
readers to speculate that the death of the baby might have been due to “something of an alternative
nature”. A speculative comment is presented as a fact, in breach of Principle 2.
On Principle 5, the Press Ombudsman finds that the publication relied upon sources as the basis for
its article and its headline. It states that it did not contact the family “for obvious reasons”.
However, the Press Ombudsman finds that in publishing a misleading headline that left it open to
readers to speculate about what had happened, it did not take the feelings of grieving families into
account, as required by Principle 5.
On Principle 9, the Press Ombudsman finds it surprising that the publication asserts that it does not
believe the Principle is relevant to the complaint. The Principle applies to all coverage of children
when it states that the press shall take particular care when presenting information or comment
about a child under the age of 18. It also requires publications to have regard for the vulnerability of
children.
The complainant states that “sensational media coverage” which was also “inappropriate and
misleading” led to significant adverse consequences for the teenage girl in terms of her education
and health. However, the Press Ombudsman finds that she does not have sufficient information to
establish that this particular article contributed to the consequences described.
This decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.