It is here that the crux of the problem occurred as the complainant stated that the images printed could be used to identify his son. He argued (as conveyed in the PCC ruling shown on the paper’s website) that “the interests of the children in the video outweighed any public interest in showing it, and the newspaper should have pixillated their faces.”

The video, which had since been removed from the popular site, was actually posted by the complainant’s son in the first place.

In making its ruling the PCC said that the complaint did not raise a breach of the code (relating to Clause 6 – children) for “numerous reasons.”
 
It noted: “The first was that the information contained in the video was not private. It showed an anti-social or criminal act committed in a public place by individuals who were over the age of criminal responsibility.
 
“Second, the information was not only in the public domain, but had been placed there voluntarily by the complainant's son. The newspaper itself had therefore neither interviewed nor photographed the youths, but had simply referred to information that was freely available and that, for whatever reason, the perpetrators of the incident had wanted to circulate publicly.”

The PCC also noted that that it was “debatable” whether the pictures were sufficient to identify the man’s son and stated “publishing the story was clearly a matter of public interest and an example of an entirely legitimate journalistic exercise.”

Something that, judging by the comments on the Northwich Guardian’s website, the paper’s readers clearly agree with.

Did you enjoy this article? Please share it!