News

Compare and Contrast: The Sun's headline and the apology

21/10/2014

The Sun Devil Mark Cover

At the end of July The Sun picked up a ‘story’ which had appeared on the Facebook page of a mother from Shropshire. The woman had posted a photograph of the boy with a curious mark on his torso. The Sun somehow managed to turn this inconsequential ‘news’ into a front-page lead with a photograph of the boy’s face, bare chest and a tendentious headline: ‘Boy, 4, has mark of devil’.The paper even gave details of the child’s medical history – he has a rare disease – and named him and his primary school. Although it was clear that the boy’s parents had cooperated with The Sun, it was clearly outrageous breach of the child’s privacy and put him at risk of mockery and bullying.Yesterday The Sun, following a complaint by Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, admitted it had got it wrong and would be changing its procedures regarding children. They also promised to publish an acknowledgement that they got it wrong.Today we got the admission and the publication. The original story was page 1, the apology is page 2. For your ease we’ve put the two side-by-side (see picture).Is the contrition comparable to the original offence? We’ll let you compare and make your own mind up.You can read our original analysis of the story here.

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News