A reporter for The Sun visited the parents of a British aid worker killed in an airstrike in Gaza before they had been informed of his death.
Press regulator IPSO criticised the fact that the journalist entered the property of the couple even after he discovered they were not yet aware of what had happened. And it was also critical of the fact the reporter was present when the man’s parents were informed of their son’s death.
John Chapman was one of seven aid workers for World Central Kitchen, including two other Britons, who were killed when Israeli missiles hit their vehicles at 8.30pm (UK time) on 1 April last year.
At around 8am on 2 April Getty Images published a photo of Chapman’s passport found at the scene of the airstrike and two hours later Associated Press reported three British nationals had been killed. The Sun said it contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and did not receive a response.
A reporter from the paper visited the home of Tony and Annette Chapman, the deceased aid worker’s parents, in Poole in Dorset at 1.30pm on 2 April.
IPSO said the decision to seek comment from Chapman’s family was not in itself a breach of Clause 4 (intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice because “the death of an aid worker in these circumstances was a significant and legitimate news story”.
However, it said an approach must be handled under the terms of Clause 4 which states “approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively”.
IPSO noted that there had been no official confirmation either that Chapman had died or that his family had been informed which meant “particular care” needed to be taken.
Chapman’s wife had been informed of his death and decided to travel to his parents’ house and tell them in person but the journalist got there first.
When the reporter arrived at the home of Chapman’s parents, he encountered the aid worker’s father who was evidently not in a state of distress. IPSO said this should have suggested the “strong likelihood” that he was not aware of what had happened. The subsequent interaction was recorded.
The reporter said “I’m here about John” and asked: “Have you heard any news from him at all?” and Chapman’s father responded: “No.”
The journalist added: “I think he might have been involved in an incident.”
The journalist phoned the Sun newsdesk to ask what he should do. IPSO’s complaints committee said by doing so he “acted properly and appropriately by stepping away from a sensitive situation, and seeking guidance on how to handle the situation”.
The reporter’s side of the conversation was recorded. He said: “The parents don’t even know. So, they’ve asked me what happened, I don’t really want to break it to them, they’re elderly. So, do you know what I mean, it’s one of those ones where I feel like I have to make the desk aware of this before anything else happens.
“I can’t like not tell them, it’s like… I’m outside, yeah they’re asking. I’m outside, they’re asking me what’s happening. Like, what do you think? Yeah, its Foreign Office isn’t it. I can’t. I can’t. I can’t tell them this, it’s too much.”
‘I think he might have been involved in an incident’
The Sun told the reporter to make polite conversation without revealing Chapman’s death and leave as soon as possible without revealing anything. The newspaper told IPSO it had felt that the reporter’s abrupt departure may have led to further questions.
IPSO noted this concern but said “the magnitude of the potential harm that might have been caused was far lesser than what subsequently occurred: the parents of John Chapman being made aware, via an interaction with a reporter working for a national publication and without the appropriate support of their family and support networks, that their son had been involved in an airstrike, which in fact had been fatal”.
IPSO said the decision to stay was “a clear breach of Clause 4 and was likely to cause significant distress, confusion, and intrusion.
“It made it likely that the reporter either would disclose information about Mr Chapman’s condition, or would be present when the family received distressing news about their son.”
While at the house the reporter was “drawn into conversations” about Chapman “that were highly intrusive and caused the family further concern and upset”.
The reporter had informed the family there had been an airstrike and later added: “There were names of people that might be involved or could have been in the area and John was one of them.”
Chapman’s mother invited the reporter into the house and called his wife twice, leaving voicemails. While the journalist was still present, Chapman’s wife called his mother back and broke the news of his death on the phone.
The first voicemail from Chapman’s mother said “there’s somebody here about John, is he hurt?”
The second voicemail captured part of a conversation between her and the journalist. The woman asked: “Where did you get this message from then?” to which he responded: “The message was put round by a foreign news agency called AFP.”
She asked: “You just telling us that he could be dead? Do you know? Or are you not telling us?”
And the journalist responded: “I don’t know, I don’t know conclusively anything I’m afraid. I’m going off what the foreign news agency has put round on the news wire. There were names of people that might be involved or could have been in the area and John was one of them. So I was hoping, madam, that you might be….”
IPSO said the reporter’s actions also went beyond making polite conversation by asking a number of specific questions about Chapman that amounted to journalistic enquiries, including who he worked for in Gaza and whether he was previously in the Marines.
“This demonstrated that the reporter was undertaking further inquiries rather than leaving the situation at the earliest opportunity,” IPSO said.
Asked again by Chapman’s father what had happened, the reporter said: “There’s been some air strikes that could have affected people working in aid. There were some British people that are said to have been involved and I know that John Chapman was…”
After being invited inside the house, Chapman’s mother asked: “Can’t you tell us anything then?”
The reporter responded: “I’m really sorry to turn up like this. There has been an airstrike and a number of people are hurt in the airstrike, and three people are thought to be British and one of the names of people working in that area was John.”
The Sun said in hindsight “it may have been a better decision to leave the property before any substantive interaction occurred”.
It also said it regretted that its reporter reached the house before the family could share the news. However it noted that its journalist “tried not to give any additional information which may have caused further distress”.
IPSO ruled that The Sun breached Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code and ordered the publication of a lengthy adjudication in print and online.
Read the full IPSO ruling here.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
