Jordanian public opinion had been busy during the first and second weeks of May with media reports about a presumed incident, claiming that a doctor had left a mobile phone in the abdomen of a patient who underwent surgery at a public hospital. The claim proved to be untrue. The story goes back to reports broadcast on Ro"ya TV Channel, which the AKEED Monitor confirmed cared for speed at the expense of accuracy and verification.

The professional mistake was clear in that Ro"ya news site had posted a video that contained one viewpoint only. It included interviews with the parents of the patient, in which they related the story, saying that the doctor who treated her had forgotten a mobile phone in her abdomen. Since this violates the professional standards and traditions followed by the most reputable media organizations, the site should clearly apologize for what it had published.

Based on the professional standards followed by the Jordanian Media Credibility Monitor (AKEED), the mistake committed by the electronic site lies in publishing a video that did not include the opinions of experts and relevant parties. This is in addition to adopting speculation and assumptions without logical evidence and without any verification in line with professional standards that require safeguarding public interest. 

Speed in publishing came at the expense of verification of the presumed incident and its accuracy. The content relied on incomplete information. The lack of this information means distorting reality. It did not rely on reliable and expert sources that have a history of credibility.

Although the site published a news story, along with the report, containing views denying the report, the absence of these opinions from the video is a professional mistake, especially since this video was made available to viewers and was carried by social media and many other electronic sites. This necessitates making an apology for this misleading and speedy publication so as to strengthen professional and press standards that reflect the credibility of the establishment and its commitment to the standards of the profession.

Story and Repercussions

Ro"ya published a story titled "X-Rays Show Mobile Phone Inside Abdomen of Patient; Health Ministry Denies. In a TV interview, a woman said that her daughter had a C-section on 24 April. The daughter complained of some complications, according to her mother. She said that the abdomen of her daughter was "vibrating," adding that the reason was that there was a mobile phone, which doctors had forgotten during the operation. She added that the patient went to the hospital on 7 May, two weeks after the surgery, and that she suffered some pain in her abdomen. She said that doctors operated on her daughter without her consent and without the permission of her parents to remove the mobile phone, which was visible in the X-ray.

The video contained three interviews in the same vein. Besides the mother of the patient, the video had an interview with a man who held an X-ray. He stood next to the mother of the patient and was pointing to the mobile phone in the image. Ro"ya placed a caption on the video at the bottom of the screen titled "X-Ray Reveals Mobile Phone Inside Abdomen of Patient."

This story generated significant reactions and was carried by many electronic and social media sites. This prompted the Jordan Medical Association to ask its legal adviser to file a lawsuit against Ro"ya and the Ammon News site for publishing the story. Most sites removed the video, but after the damage was already done.

Ro"ya published a new report titled "In Video, Details of Claim of Presence of Mobile Phone in Abdomen of Woman." The story used the expression "claim of presence" to appear as neutral in raising the issue. It also published a story on its website about medical sources denying the information. However, it included a paragraph in the same story, saying: "The information received by Ro"ya says that the woman had a surgery at a hospital and that it turned out later, through X-rays taken for the woman at a public hospital, that a solid object appeared in the images, making doctors admit her to hospital urgently to do what is necessary. It transpired, according to what Ro"ya received, that what was found in the abdomen of the patient was a mobile phone."

This story was the subject of discussion by a joint parliamentary committee (health and environment, national guidance and media). The discussion was attended by the ministers of information and justice, the secretary general of the Ministry of Health, and the director of Al Bashir Hospital on 17 May. The presidents of the Jordan Medical Association, Jordanian Dental Association, Jordan Nurses and Midwives Council, and Jordan Pharmaceutical Association, who attended the meeting, called for "handing down stiffer penalties to anyone who seeks to discredit the medical sector in Jordan and all medical staff." They noted that there was "a fierce attack that serves private agendas, some of which are in favor of regional countries that seek to benefit from medical tourism. There was a desire to deliver a blow to this tourism in Jordan by publishing erroneous information every now and then."    

What Is the Mistake in Publishing?

Later facts about the condition of the patient, besides medical and expert opinions, proved that the story was based on a claim and unrealistic speculation. Professionally, media outlets may not turn into platforms for publishing claims before verifying them, especially if such claims are related to public interest. AKEED observes that the aspects of the professional mistake committed by the media outlets that published this story are as follows:

First, not conducting sufficient verification of the incident: News that appears to be unrealistic and bizarre requires further verification before deciding to present it to the public, specifically when this news is related to health aspects that are highly sensitive.

Second, the imbalance in the story and relying on one party in the video without taking different views into consideration.

Third, the denial by the competent parties of what the parents said did not appear in the news material that was published along with the story.

Fourth, the video report published by Ro"ya showed that the site sided by the story of the parents and tried to prove the accuracy of their story as it clearly exaggerated the number of interviews that supported their view, while the electronic site did not ask specialized persons about the validity of what the parents said.

Fifth, the story did not include neutral medical reports that determine whether a piece of information is true or untrue. No media outlet conducted an interview with the treating doctor or even specialists at the radiological department to speak about the X-ray.

Since issues of public health and coverage of medical affairs are highly sensitive, the sites that published the story did not raise the following questions:

Can a patient whose abdomen contains a mobile phone for half a month stay alive?

Can a mobile phone remain on (vibrating) in the abdomen of a human being for half a month?

Is it possible that the mobile phone, which allegedly appeared in the X-rays, was in the pocket of the patient?

What is the opinion of radiological experts and independent doctors of the validity of the X-ray?

Is the image that the parents have indeed the one that was produced at the hospital?

How did the parents judge that what was in the image was a mobile phone?

Commenting on the issue, Nidal Mansour, president of the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, says that publishing the video with one viewpoint accusing other parties was illogical and undermined professional standards. Mansour said that "such a story is not easy to believe. Before publishing it, the media must apply the standards of verification and take the opinions of the doctor accused in the case and a neutral medical side." Mansour said that "publishing the video in this manner is illogical. The establishment should apologize in a prominent place out of respect for its audience and credibility."

In a telephone call with AKEED, Ahmad Qutaitat, director of Al Bashir Hospital, expressed dissatisfaction with the publication of the report, wondering: "How can a mobile phone be left in the body of a patient for 14 days and for this patient to stay alive?" He said: "If a piece of sterile gauze, which is free from germs, remains inside the body of a patient for 48 hours, it will cause infection and then blood poisoning and consequently the death of the patient, let alone a mobile phone, which is full of bacteria and which remained in the body of the patient for two weeks."

He said that what happened "challenges and casts doubt on the medical procedures we follow at the Ministry of Health or Al Bashir Hospital when we conduct operations." Concerning the X-rays taken of the patient upon visiting the hospital and the medical procedures carried out by the hospital staff, Qutaitat said that "when the patient showed up at the emergency department, she had high temperature after she had undergone a C-section two weeks before. X-rays were taken. There was nothing in the X-rays to suggest that there was a mobile phone in her abdomen." He added that "doctors then carried out a medical procedure after administering anesthesia, but it was not a surgery, as was rumored. She suffered from a mild infection in the wound and the size of the uterus was larger than normal. There was also fluid in the reproductive system, which required medical intervention."

On the medical condition of the patient after that intervention, Qutaitat said that "the patient remained in the hospital for three days and left it after receiving the proper treatment."

Lawyer Saddam Abu Azzam says that "coverage of the story focused on commenting on the news on the basis of an established assumption, which is that the story was true." He said that "the news cited about the case was not based on any real source of information." He affirmed that this raises questions about the ability of the media to provide balanced, objective coverage of the facts.

He pointed out that there were ethical and legal parameters that media people must observe when handling public opinion issues so that the coverage would not turn into a public trial. Such a trial largely violates human rights, affects personal life, and is usually characterized by defamation and scoop in the media at the expense of objectivity and accuracy of information. He said that this issue contained violations of the Press and Publications Law, which stipulates the need for observing accuracy, credibility, and balance in press coverage and heeding ethical and humanitarian aspects. He added that cases related to medical affairs, especially medical mistakes, cannot be judged except through the judiciary and medical establishments, and that the role of the media in them must not be that of reaching definitive conclusions.

Apologizing to the Public: Professional Practice

Daily media activities cause media outlets to make professional mistakes. Most media outlets commit such mistakes; however, the best practice that maintains the credibility of the media is to acknowledge mistakes and apologize to the public. AKEED notes that all the electronic sites and media entities that ran the story must publish a clear and explicit apology. This is because the law does not exempt these sites from responsibility for publishing.

One instance of apology made by reputable press organizations is what the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, did when it apologized to Band Aid because of reports it had broadcast, claiming that millions of pounds raised by the charity to alleviate famine in Ethiopia were used to buy arms. The BBC report did not link the charity directly to this; it implied this, without stating it explicitly. Yet, the BBC said that it apologizes unreservedly "for the misleading and unfair impression" it had created.

The following are some instances of apology made by major media outlets because of professional mistakes:

Fox News Apologizes Four Times for Erroneous Information About Muslims in Europe

Fox News Apologizes for Erroneous Information

CBS Apologizes for Misleading Information on Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi

Murdoch Apologizes Again:  Phone-Hacking Scandal "Regrettable"