The paper carried a picture of a man who had hanged himself from a bridge. It was not possible to see the man’s face, but the image that I have seen is very distressing.

Given that the man’s identity was not known, all of the complaints are third-party and it is therefore uncertain whether the PCC will hold an inquiry. However, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have been contacted by the PCC in case the man’s relatives do wish to raise the matter formally.
He thought it necessary to carry the image in order to underline the point of the story, headed “HALLOWEEN HORROR”, which alleged that the PSNI had left the body hanging for passing motorists to see for three hours.
According to the editors’ code of practice, “when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.” That would not appear to be relevant on this occasion
But even if the police are to blame in some way for their tardiness, that does not justify publishing the picture. There is a long tradition in British and Irish journalism of not showing dead bodies (unless the deaths occur elsewhere in the world). This is to avoid unnecessary intrusion into grief.
But a seminar organised by the PCC in December last year – carried on its website – reminded journalists of the need for sensitivity in reporting death by suicide.

And there is a section in the Editors’ Codebook specifically about using “graphic images” depicting the act of suicide. It states: “Risks of a breach could arise if the pictures broke the news of the death to the families; or contained excessive detail of the method used; or could be taken to glamorise suicide.”

It is possible that the paper may have broken the first of these three injunctions. There is also a question of encouraging copycat deaths (by making the bridge itself a place for suicides).

Overall, however, it is a matter of taste, and that is strictly a matter between editors and their readers. If people do not like what a paper publishes then they can stop buying it.
McDowell has taken risks in the past by publishing important public interest stories in the face of threats from paramilitaries. He has also attracted criticism for some of the sexier material in his paper, which is unashamedly populist.

This time, I’m afraid, he has overstepped the mark. He should admit he made a mistake by taking the earliest possible opportunity to issue a public apology and then repeat it in his paper next Sunday

Gately died Oct. 10, aged 33, while vacationing on the Spanish island of Mallorca. An autopsy found he had died of natural causes from pulmonary edema, or fluid in the lungs.

Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir wrote in a column Friday that Gately’s death was “not, by any yardstick, a natural one” and said he died in “sleazy” circumstances, She noted that Gately, who came out publicly as gay in 1999, had been to a bar and invited a young Bulgarian man back to his apartment the night before he died.
Moir concluded that “under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.”

Anger at the column swept social networking site Twitter soon after Moir’s piece appeared on the paper’s Web site. Actor Stephen Fry urged his 860,000 Twitter followers to contact the Press Complaints Commission. Other prominent Tweeters followed suit, and provided links to thMoir defended her article, claiming suggestions of homophobia were “mischievous” and suggesting the backlash was a “heavily orchestrated Internet campaign.”

The commission said Monday it had received “by far the highest number of complaints ever” about a single article. It said it would write to the newspaper seeking a response before deciding whether to take further action.
e commission’s Web site.

The agreement, brokered by the Press Complaints Commission, shows how seriously papers now take even a high-profile person’s right to privacy.

It also illustrates the success of a Football Association strategy designed to protect Capello from the problems that haunted one of his predecessors, Sven Göran Eriksson.

For those who do not read the News of the World and/or the Daily Mail, both papers published pictures – on Sunday and Monday – of Capello and his wife on a Spanish beach. They showed the couple having had a mud bath.

The Capellos had been aware last Thursday that photographers were lurking and, on their behalf, the Football Association contacted the PCC. National paper “editors” were duly informed.
But, you may well ask in the light of the scores of paparazzi pictures taken of celebrities on the world’s beaches, why should Capello be off limits anyway?

The answer is complex and revealing. First off, it demonstrates that the privacy clause in the editors’ code of practice is taken more seriously than ever before, a positive result of the human rights act.

Second, it is the result of the FA making a pro-active move at the beginning of Capello’s managership some 18 months ago. Its director of communications, Adrian Bevington, wrote to every editor at the time to explain that Capello wanted his privacy respected.

Capello would give the sports journalists interviews and briefings, but he would not be seeking publicity beyond that. He refused requests for interviews and picture sessions with magazines.

In other words, he was not seeking the limelight and, most definitely, neither was his wife. Just the reverse. The FA made it clear that she wished to remain an entirely private individual.

With the exception of one odd paparazzi picture – of Capello standing on some rocks – papers and magazines have accepted that situation.
Third, the PCC has been assiduous in the last couple of years in dealing with complaints made discreetly by people worried about their privacy being compromised. By their nature, these private complaints never emerge in public.As long as editors abide by the advice given by the PCC, and nothing is published, then complaints are dealt with in secret. Capello’s case emerged in public simply because the two papers offended.

I understand that within those papers the culprits have been disciplined. Paul Dacre, the Mail’s editor, was particularly upset. As chair of the committee that oversees the code he could not be seen to ignore PCC warnings.

The errors certainly proved costly. The News of the World paid out a five figure sum to the Sir Bobby Robson foundation while the Mail’s donation was “close to five figures”.
That strict, black-and-white ruling seemed harsh at the time, even if logical. Now, clearly, the PCC has taken on board the fact that people have rights to privacy wherever they are.

The complaint upheld against the Sunday Times came from Tony Wright, the Labour MP for Cannock Case, who argued that the paper’s apology to him over a false story was not given enough prominence.

The News of the World complaint was from Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, who said the paper was wrong when it said he was “hardly ever” at his constituency home in Hampshire and wrong to claim he had tried to censor publication of its story.

In a front-page story, the Sunday Times wrongly alleged that Wright had accepted money to surrender a tenancy agreement and then moved to the same block with a lower rent. It had confused him with another MP of the same name. The paper published an apology in its next edition on page 20, but the PCC ruled that it had not given due prominence to the apology, considering the story had run on the front page.

“The commission did not consider that – however widely read the newspaper’s letters page was – the bottom of page 20 was a sufficiently prominent place to correct a serious inaccuracy that had appeared on the front page. The complaint was therefore upheld,” the PCC said.

Realising that the black-bordered “official tribute issue 1981-2009″ with the strapline “In loving memory” of the reality TV star, who is gravely ill with cancer, had provoked strong criticism, OK! issued a statement earlier this afternoon defending its tribute issue and revealling that it had contacted Goody’s family since publication.

“OK!’s tribute issue is a celebration of Jade’s amazing life. Jade’s family have spoken to OK! today to reiterate that they understand the tribute issue and view it as being very kind to Jade.

“They would like to also state that they are extremely grateful for the support that OK! has provided during this distressing period,” the statement said from publisher Northern and Shell.
The point of principle is fairly clear, I don’t think it has changed. We have never said no to third party complaints,” he told journalists. “What we have always said is that what you can’t have is a third party trumping the rights and wishes of a first party.”

Coverage of Goody’s plight has rarely been off the front pages of the tabloids, she has also been a lucrative figure for OK! Magazine in recent times.