The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by the ESB that an article in the Evening Herald of 21 October 2010 was in breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it reported, as fact, that a person had taken his own life because of his concern about an unpaid electricity bill. A second complaint about the article was not upheld, and it was not possible to make a decision on a third complaint about it.
The headline of the article stated: “Dad hanged himself over €650 ESB bill”. The newspaper said that people close to the deceased, and particularly his widow, said they believed that the deceased’s biggest worry was related to his inability to pay an ESB bill. It also pointed out that the first paragraph of the article had used the word “claimed” to qualify the headline, and accepted that the root causes of suicide were complex.
As there was evidence that the deceased was under severe financial pressure for a number of different reasons, and as his death was sudden, comments or conjectures about the reason or reasons for his death 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 it was clear from the first paragraph of the article that this was something that was claimed, the presentation of this claim in the headline as an unqualified fact is a breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice, and that part of the complaint is 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.