Complaint
A reader of this article complained that its headline and content gave a seriously misleading impression in relation to the paramedic concerned, and that insufficient steps had been taken to correct it.Β The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔβs Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and on correcting mistakes.
Outcome
After naming the paramedic, the main body of the article began βA paramedic first on the scene at the Manchester Arena Bombing did not give treatment to casualties, an inquiry into the atrocities has heardβ.Β In combination with the headline, this gave the impression that he might have been expected to treat casualties, but had failed to do so.Β In fact it had been his function to triage victims of the blast and prepare for a wider response.Β Although the article went on to allude to that point, in the ECUβs judgement it did not do so in a way which would have offset the impression complained of, and the result was misleading as to the paramedicβs responsibilities.Β However, the ECU noted that, as well as changing the headline and emending the text of the article within a few hours of its original appearance, ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News posted a detailed explanation and apology on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Complaints website, which included a link to a further post on Twitter.Β In the ECUβs judgement, this was enough to satisfy the requirement of the Guidelines for serious errors to be corrected quickly, clearly and appropriately.
Resolved