[ad_1]
In March 2020, the newspaper published on its website, gp.se, among other things, an image in which three of the lawyers of the firm in question appeared. Below the image were a series of headlines. Among other things, a link to the article “Lawyer demanded payment for conversations with a deceased client.”
The agency in question, Front Advokater, was the subject of an investigation into its debit to the municipality of Gothenburg. According to the municipality, it was not clear what work had been done.
The online post was reported by the three attorneys who were in the picture in connection with the article. It is true that the reader who clicked on the link thought that the notified headline was referring to another agency. But for those readers who didn’t read the article, the layout of the post appeared to be that the claim that a lawyer was demanding payment for a conversation with a deceased person applied to Front Advokater. According to the lawyers, the publication damaged both their professional and private lives.
The editor in charge of Göteborgs-Posten, Christofer Ahlqvist, objected that the titles were sufficiently separated by different fonts, font sizes and bullets. By clicking on the link, it was already clear in the first sentence of the article that it did not apply to Front Advokater.
MO evaluation
According to the Media Ombudsman (MO), attorneys hold such a position of trust in relation to their clients that they have to endure critical scrutiny regarding their professional practice. In this case, the public interest is also reinforced by the fact that the city / municipality has contracted Front Advokater. Therefore, there is no objection that Göteborgs-Posten carried out the current review. Rather, the information has a significant public interest.
There is an ethical requirement from the media that criticism be presented correctly, and the requirement for accuracy also applies to the submission of reviews.
Front Advokater is the only law firm mentioned by name in the titles. Occurs both above and below the criticized headline. The reader who only reads the headlines can hardly perceive the matter other than the information that an attorney was indicted for conversations with a deceased client was referring to Front Advokater.
Because the whistleblowers were in the picture in relation to the headlines, there was a risk that the reader might also conclude that it was one of them who was the criticized attorney charging for conversations with a deceased client.
The information was offensive and hurt the complainants.
The case in the Media Ethics Committee
The exchange of letters in the committee has been extensive.
In short, the newspaper considers that the risk of using the image to identify the complainants is negligible and cannot be considered to have been designated in the sense of press ethics. The distribution of the article has also been limited.
The lawyers, for their part, believe that if the newspaper had ensured that no misunderstandings would arise, the article about the lawyer paid for a deceased client would not have been among the headlines of two articles about Front Advokater.
Evaluation of the Media Ethics Committee
The Media Ethics Committee shares MO’s assessment and concludes that unjustifiable publicity damage has been done to the complainants. The newspaper is blamed for violating good journalistic practices.
This is an abbreviated version of the board’s decision. The decision in its entirety will be available on the website of the Media Ethics Committee / Public Media Ombudsman www.medieombudsmannen.se.
Footnote: The Press Opinion Board and the Public Press Ombudsman were reorganized on January 1, 2020 into the Media Ethics Committee and the Public Media Ombudsman.
Do you want to know more about how GP works with quality journalism? Read our ethical rules here.
[ad_2]
