[imc-uk-emergency] Re: [Imc-uk-features] [article:293456] infactual? and...

[garcondumonde]

**note: re-sent to imc-uk-emergency as lists down/slow**

hi,

i've read through this post and all the comments (there are a number
subsequent to ekes' comment).

the majority are in favour of NOT hiding the article.

i have hidden it.

Why?? there are a number of reasons. i will post a short comment under the
article linking to this email as well....

1. firstly, i agree with the comment ekes made about mental health problems:

> There is a __serious__ issue around mental health, schools and exam
stresses. This article fails to highlight these issues because it names
individuals. Reporting, and campaigning, must highlight the many people
involved and doesn't need names.

teenagers are under an enormous amount of stress that is often
unrecognised. adolescent girls are pretty much at the peak of the iceberg
in terms of numbers of attempted suicide: they do it more than anybody
else (although fortunately they are less successful than their male
counterparts).

2. there appears - from comments posted under the article and from surfing
various other BBs found thru google.co.uk - to be some variance in the
details around the story. it is not entirely clear what happened when, and
the story is merely attributed to "my sources" - hardly a descriptive
account of what role/credibility those people may have.

3. kathryn blair has already been found involved in disputes over stories
about her in the press:

"39.   Blair MP v Mail on Sunday (Report 47, 1999)"
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/458/3032509.htm

"...the Commission noted the Code's responsibility to protect vulnerable
children. In this case, it considered that Kathryn would start school at
the centre of a row over the validity of her admission and felt that the
story therefore had significantly affected her welfare at a particularly
crucial time....

it considered that the article was in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Code of Practice. It therefore followed that, because the article was
misleading, there could be no public interest in its contents. The breach
of Clause 1 necessarily would demonstrate a breach of Clause 6 (Children)
in that untrue allegations connected to a child would automatically harm
her welfare and obviate the public interest defence. The Commission—in
line with the precedents set out in Section 1—also noted the extent to
which Mr and Mrs Blair had gone to protect the privacy of their daughter."

i think this is an interesting reference because it, legitimately, raises
questions about press adherence to a voluntary code of conduct (please
correct me if i am wrong about any of the details: i am neither a lawyer
nor a journalist!) regarding personal privacy - including the privacy of a
child - in a public arena. there are implications for indymedia, too...

by following the logic presented in this quote (and the full reference,
which is only a few lines longer), i think that the article should be
hidden: there is not enough evidence that it is correct and i think that
the article could be more damaging.

[nb. a medical definition of childhood in the uk includes all those under
the age of 16 and those up to the age of 18 who remain in full-time
education]

My suggestion would be that the article is perhaps re-written, anonymising
the name of the child (although i would agree that the public interest may
be served best by stating "there are rumours that one of tony blair's
children attempted suicide last month" or something similar) in order that
this important aspect of our society can be highlighted.

i note that the article is printed in full on tony gosling's own website,
The All Seeing Eye - http://www.public-interest.co.uk/aseye/index.htm and
i am not trying to suggest that that should be changed as i have no place
to do so. i do find, however, that it is interesting that one of the links
from the article on that website is to "Ethical guidance on the reporting
of suicide" - http://www.presswise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=166

from there, i quickly reached guidelines which talked about "suicide
contagion" and also raised as a concern the fact that,

"Using adolescents on TV or in print media to tell the stories of their
suicide attempts may be harmful to the adolescents themselves or may
encourage other vulnerable young people to seek attention in this way."

i finish with another quote from ekes:

> We want to change things, for the better. Lets tackle issues of mental
health properly. Lets not point fingers at people without talking to
them. Lets involve people in changing things.

love & solidarity,

--gdm

nb. i would like to remind everyone that no article is removed from
www.indymedia.org.uk - they are all visible by following the 'view all
posts' link which can be found on the editorial guidelines page,
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html