"If families do grant an interview, ensure that they have an opportunity to see the publication to satisfy themselves only of the factual accuracy, without prejudice to the editorial independence of the publication."
SAMM now recommends that the family -- what we do, if they can get sight of the copy, that is very -- advantage to them so they can check that it's factually correct.
In one instance recently in regard to that, a family raised a considerable amount of money for our organisation and a particular newspaper ... (break in signal) wanted to run a story on it. They interviewed myself and two other members. I asked to see the copy. It was sent to me. It was so inaccurate it was unbelievable. I sent back the corrections. That piece of copy went back three times and it still did not go in in an accurate way. It was sensationalised to the point that my father's house burnt down, which was rubbish. So what's the point if when you provide them with the factual evidence, factual information, why is that not accepted? Why has it to be written in such a way that is distressing?