The newspaper accepted that complex issues surrounded suicide, but said that the article had been based largely on statements made by the wife and friends of the deceased, and that it had communicated with these individuals in advance of publication in order to ensure accuracy of the views published. It also pointed out that the sub-headline referred to the fact that the deceased’s widow had spoken about the matter, and that comments in the article were clearly attributed her.
As there was evidence that the deceased was under financial pressure for a number of different reasons, and as his death was sudden, comments or conjecture about the reason or reasons for his suicide can legitimately be reported as such. The article’s headline, however, prominently reported as fact that one factor alone – an outstanding ESB bill – was the reason for his death. While the views and opinions of the family and friends about this sad event were clearly accurately reported, the presentation of the claim in the headline as an unqualified fact is a breach of Principle 2, and this part of the complaint is therefore upheld.
As it is impossible to establish the accuracy or otherwise of the statement in the headline, it is not possible to make a decision on whether or not the headline breached Principle 1 of the Code.
There was no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, as would be required to support a breach of Principle 4, and, as the newspaper did take reasonable care in checking facts before publication by contacting the ESB in advance, this part of the complaint is not upheld.
