Guardian Sorry For Sun Source Story

Brown

First Posted: 15/07/11 07:37 BST Updated: 13/09/11 11:12 BST

PRESS ASSOCIATION -- The Guardian has apologised to The Sun after it made claims about the tabloid obtaining the medical records of Gordon Brown's son.

The newspaper said The Sun accessed the Brown family's medical files without their knowledge to find that the former prime minister's son Fraser had cystic fibrosis.

The information led the tabloid to publish an article in November 2006 revealing that the four-month-old had the condition, The Guardian said.

However, The Sun, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International, denied the claim, insisting its source had been a member of the public.

It said an unnamed man, whose child also suffered from cystic fibrosis, contacted its journalists with the information in the hope it would raise awareness about the condition.

The newspaper said the individual had signed a legal affidavit confirming this.

In a statement printed in its corrections and clarification section, The Guardian said: "Articles in the Guardian of Tuesday 12 July incorrectly reported that the Sun newspaper had obtained information on the medical condition of Gordon Brown's son from his medical records.

"In fact the information came from a different source and the Guardian apologises for its error."

A spokesman for The Sun criticised The Guardian for running the story and praised its own journalists for bringing its readers "agenda-leading news stories, with legitimate news gathering techniques".

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

PRESS ASSOCIATION -- The Guardian has apologised to The Sun after it made claims about the tabloid obtaining the medical records of Gordon Brown's son. The newspaper said The Sun accessed the Brown...
PRESS ASSOCIATION -- The Guardian has apologised to The Sun after it made claims about the tabloid obtaining the medical records of Gordon Brown's son. The newspaper said The Sun accessed the Brown...
Filed by Dina Rickman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:01 PM on 07/15/2011
But they still ran the story without his permission which is incredibly insensitive and having an 'unnamed' (and therefore unverifiable) source sounds a little convenient to me.
05:22 PM on 07/15/2011
You liberals/regressives are losing another one, you should be use to it by now.
04:27 PM on 07/15/2011
A legal affidavit...a document prepared by the Sun's lawyers that cleared them of wrongdoing. Great, that clears it all up.
photo
pdxist
Feel free to copy my avatar! (Or ask me how.)
04:22 PM on 07/15/2011
So the Sun paid someone who accessed the medical records.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
04:10 PM on 07/15/2011
How does the Guardian know that the Sun is being honest about this? Did someone at the Sun assure them that this time - as opposed to all the previous points where they appear to have lied or cheated to gain the story - for some reason, they were struck by the Truth Fairy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Sue Mc Cormick
God..Family..Country Always
03:37 PM on 07/15/2011
If there is an un-named source who has a child withCF...then who is he? And if wanted to raise awareness of this disease, then why not be out in the open with it? He could tell everyone that, "My child has CF!" Or he could say that more people who have been affected by this terrible illness should step forward and raise awareness of it together.
The Sun was still in the wrong for publishing a story about a 4 month old child without his parents permission. It was not like the child was causing anyone else a lot of trouble or placed anyone else in a life or death situation!
But..i forgot for a moment there that Murdoch and Company had an iota of compassion! My bad!
03:28 PM on 07/15/2011
don't care.....a politician's family's medical information is confidential information and has no business being in any news paper unless the family puts it there.

it's a no brainer and it doesn't matter who the darn source is
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hillbilly49
Don't tell me you are a Christian; let me guess.
02:40 PM on 07/15/2011
Mr. Brown and his family were the victims of a right wing smear machine; disguised as a news paper. The present prime minister has a cloud over him; due to is connection to the Murdoch Crime Family.
02:38 PM on 07/15/2011
Yesterday I made the mistake of watching Morning Joe and saw CNBC;s Simon Hobbs ranting about how Gordon Brown was culpable because he didn't bring it to the attention of the authorities initially. It was the most bizarre thing I've witnessed in a while. He was shouting and angry! Politicians fear Murdoch's new's organization for a very good reason. Simon Hobbs actually seemed panic stricken to me. I thought this guy is guilty of something or has huge sums invested in Murdoch's empire. If I was an FBI agent I'd certainly be curious about his defense of someone allegedly guilty of a crime. It's interesting how these news organization stress broken laws when it's the other guy and I think this guy is also guilty of something.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ebanks84
Grandma knows best!
01:59 PM on 07/15/2011
Whatever way they got the information, they should have been sensitive enough to "NOT" print it for the family's sake. Why is a family's medical history news anyway? I believe the new media has gone ballistic in their news gathering techniques and information release because they seem to be going for the money instead of being sensitive to the people they might be hurting.
02:42 PM on 07/15/2011
We all know that Murdoch's news organization is a tabloid not a news organization. They are sensationalizing anything for money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ebanks84
Grandma knows best!
08:37 PM on 07/15/2011
When you can make money sensationalizing the fact that a child has an ailment, then that is NOT news.
12:42 PM on 07/15/2011
What is making a real difference again is good, old fashioned reporting.
And this is going to continue, irrespective of trivial mistakes.
Here a video with Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter, who was
reporting about such tabloid scandals since years and who also
found out about the Milly Dowler case, the one scandal too many
and too disgusting.
In the video he tells how it all came to it: http://tinyurl.com/6j34zsr
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inapickle
09:03 PM on 07/15/2011
Nick Davies and The Guardian deserve huge respect for sticking with this and not being intimidated. I think the Pulitzer is only for American journalists- what can he win (other than the thanks and unending gratitude of many people)?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inapickle
09:14 PM on 07/15/2011
Fantastic video- I particularly appreciated the last minute or so. Thanks! F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Uncle Bill
ex-lawyer and teacher
12:27 PM on 07/15/2011
Check the sources bank accounts for a Murdoch cheque.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janet Logan
Brit, Left-to-Moderate, compassionate, pragmatic
11:18 AM on 07/15/2011
It doesn't matter who the source was - they still had no business publishing the medical condition of a child without the Browns' consent. It could not be claimed it was in the public's interest to know this.

As to the bloke who rang and gave the information - what a fool! I'm sorry his child has CF but "outing" another child was not the way to raise awareness.
01:39 PM on 07/15/2011
unnamed, non-existent other bloke. a cover up
02:44 PM on 07/15/2011
I don't think there is an unnamed source. They broke some law to get this information based their patterns of acquiring information.
11:10 AM on 07/15/2011
Now the news media don't have to generate news. They are the news.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
softriver
public static void main(String [] args)
10:56 AM on 07/15/2011
A newspaper put out a retraction that wasn't on classifieds page 18923 buried under the "older couple seeks young girl" ads? I wonder what that's like.