This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/misidentified-photo-published-accidentally

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers' editor on… how a misidentified photo can accidentally be published The readers' editor on… how a misidentified photo can accidentally be published
(3 months later)
At around 9pm on the evening of Monday 17 June Charleigh Disbrey, 15, and Mert Karaoglan, 18, were struck by a First Capital Connect train near Elstree and Borehamwood station. The deaths of two young people in those circumstances is obviously shocking and devastating for their families. Reporting such a tragic incident requires a very high degree of care and sensitivity. In this regard the stories that appeared in the Guardian in print and online were consistent with external and internal editorial guidelines relating to such deaths.At around 9pm on the evening of Monday 17 June Charleigh Disbrey, 15, and Mert Karaoglan, 18, were struck by a First Capital Connect train near Elstree and Borehamwood station. The deaths of two young people in those circumstances is obviously shocking and devastating for their families. Reporting such a tragic incident requires a very high degree of care and sensitivity. In this regard the stories that appeared in the Guardian in print and online were consistent with external and internal editorial guidelines relating to such deaths.
However, the photograph used in the Guardian that purported to be of Mert Karaoglan was not, in fact, him. This serious error led two friends of the dead young man to contact the reporter who wrote the story, but didn't choose the photographs, and complain to the readers' editor about the mistake. One wrote: "Your article is using an image that is NOT of the right Mert Karaoglan. As a friend of his, and after speaking to his best friend, we suggest you remove this image as it is disrespectful both to the deceased, his family and the poor person [whose] image you are using."However, the photograph used in the Guardian that purported to be of Mert Karaoglan was not, in fact, him. This serious error led two friends of the dead young man to contact the reporter who wrote the story, but didn't choose the photographs, and complain to the readers' editor about the mistake. One wrote: "Your article is using an image that is NOT of the right Mert Karaoglan. As a friend of his, and after speaking to his best friend, we suggest you remove this image as it is disrespectful both to the deceased, his family and the poor person [whose] image you are using."
A colleague in the readers' editor's office replied, explaining that the online image was removed within 24 hours and apologising for the mistake. This prompted a further response: "Why on earth was the picture printed in your article in the physical copy of the Guardian? I emailed you well in time about this as so did many others. This is ridiculous, insensitive and disgusting."A colleague in the readers' editor's office replied, explaining that the online image was removed within 24 hours and apologising for the mistake. This prompted a further response: "Why on earth was the picture printed in your article in the physical copy of the Guardian? I emailed you well in time about this as so did many others. This is ridiculous, insensitive and disgusting."
The reasons why the wrong picture was used are a little complicated but show that current systems for checking are flawed. The error originated with the picture agency that submitted the photograph of the wrong young man but the agency's attempts to alert the Guardian to a possible mistake were lost in the system before publication.The reasons why the wrong picture was used are a little complicated but show that current systems for checking are flawed. The error originated with the picture agency that submitted the photograph of the wrong young man but the agency's attempts to alert the Guardian to a possible mistake were lost in the system before publication.
Each day the Guardian's computerised pictures system receives between 20,000 and 25,000 images. In addition, the picture desk receives around 150 emails a day about pictures. Even with modern search techniques that is a lot of pictures.Each day the Guardian's computerised pictures system receives between 20,000 and 25,000 images. In addition, the picture desk receives around 150 emails a day about pictures. Even with modern search techniques that is a lot of pictures.
It is no longer just the picture desk that has access to the images. The computerised system is integrated with the production system, which allows all production staff to see, and use, any of the day's submissions. However, it is still normally the responsibility of the picture desk to provide a selection of images from which to choose.It is no longer just the picture desk that has access to the images. The computerised system is integrated with the production system, which allows all production staff to see, and use, any of the day's submissions. However, it is still normally the responsibility of the picture desk to provide a selection of images from which to choose.
After the couple's death, sets of images of the young people, who were only identified during the course of the day after their deaths, were submitted to national newspapers including the Guardian. The incorrect image was among them. At some point during Tuesday afternoon the agency that supplied the wrong picture began to have doubts about the identity of the young man in this one head-and-shoulders image it had acquired and passed on. The agency emailed national newspapers' picture desks with this warning in the subject line at 4.27 pm: "news co CORRECTION: CHECK ID – SOME DISPUTE ON IDENTITY WITH THIS PICTURE -".After the couple's death, sets of images of the young people, who were only identified during the course of the day after their deaths, were submitted to national newspapers including the Guardian. The incorrect image was among them. At some point during Tuesday afternoon the agency that supplied the wrong picture began to have doubts about the identity of the young man in this one head-and-shoulders image it had acquired and passed on. The agency emailed national newspapers' picture desks with this warning in the subject line at 4.27 pm: "news co CORRECTION: CHECK ID – SOME DISPUTE ON IDENTITY WITH THIS PICTURE -".
While not conclusive, this should have been enough of a warning to prevent its use. The Guardian's picture desk didn't spot it because staff on that desk weren't looking out for anything in relation to photographs of Mert Karaoglan – at that stage of the day there were no plans to use a picture of him. According to an early press agency report, his family had asked that he should not be identified, although by the evening his name and photograph were used throughout the media by broadcasters as well as newspapers. The widespread identification of the young man led Guardian news editors to take the decision to name him and use a photograph, which they accessed using the Picdar system – but they didn't see the warning in the email system.While not conclusive, this should have been enough of a warning to prevent its use. The Guardian's picture desk didn't spot it because staff on that desk weren't looking out for anything in relation to photographs of Mert Karaoglan – at that stage of the day there were no plans to use a picture of him. According to an early press agency report, his family had asked that he should not be identified, although by the evening his name and photograph were used throughout the media by broadcasters as well as newspapers. The widespread identification of the young man led Guardian news editors to take the decision to name him and use a photograph, which they accessed using the Picdar system – but they didn't see the warning in the email system.
Turning to the point made by the young man's friend, that his first email was sufficiently timely to prevent the photograph being used in the newspaper, I am afraid not. It arrived in the readers' editor's queue at 11.13pm on the Tuesday, after the first edition had been printed and when our email is not monitored.Turning to the point made by the young man's friend, that his first email was sufficiently timely to prevent the photograph being used in the newspaper, I am afraid not. It arrived in the readers' editor's queue at 11.13pm on the Tuesday, after the first edition had been printed and when our email is not monitored.
A series of errors and mistimed coincidences resulted in the publication of the wrong photograph. The Guardian will review the faulty system and we apologise to the families of Mert Karaoglan and the misidentified young man for any distress caused.A series of errors and mistimed coincidences resulted in the publication of the wrong photograph. The Guardian will review the faulty system and we apologise to the families of Mert Karaoglan and the misidentified young man for any distress caused.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.