The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Examiner made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by a man that two articles in the newspaper were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. A number of other complaints were not upheld.
The complainant maintained under Principle 1 that there were a number of inaccuracies in the articles and, under Principle 4, that the articles concerned affected his good name. The newspaper initially invited the complainant’s legal representative to identify any errors that might have been made, but there was no response to this specific invitation. Following the subsequent lodging of a formal complaint with the Office of the Press Ombudsman, in which the complainant raised a number of specific issues, it then offered to publish a clarification in relation to some of the matters raised by the complainant. It rejected his assertion under Principle 4 that his good name had been affected by the articles concerned, and said that the subject matter of the articles was a matter of public interest. The complainant did not accept this offer.
The Press Ombudsman is satisfied that the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification was, on the balance of the evidence available, sufficient to remedy the complaint under Principle 1. He is also satisfied that the newspaper’s contention about the public interest dimension of the articles was justified, and that, in this context, the clarification offered also represented a sufficient remedy to resolve the complaint under Principle 4.
A number of other complaints under Principles 1, 2, 3 and 5 were not upheld.
In relation to Principle 1, the complainant maintained that the omission of certain information from the articles concerned amounted to a breach of the Code of Practice. As there was insufficient evidence that, in the context of these articles, the omission of the information cited constituted a breach of this Principle, these complaints are not upheld.
In relation to Principle 2, the complainant maintained that no attempt was made to contact him, and that some of the sources used in the article appeared to be anonymous. Although there was disputed evidence that the newspaper attempted unsuccessfully to contact the complainant directly prior to publication of the article concerned, it is not a requirement of Principle 2 that a newspaper should contact a person mentioned in a newspaper prior to publication, and the use of anonymous sources does not, in itself, amount to a breach of this Principle.
Although there was disputed evidence that the newspaper attempted unsuccessfully to contact the complainant directly prior to publication of the article concerned, it is not a requirement of Principle 3 that the newspaper should have done so, or that the article should have included the various other matters that the complainant felt were important to the story.
The complainant also maintained that the publication of his name in the article was a breach of Principle 5 of the Code of Practice. No evidence was submitted as to how the publication of his name, in the context of an article which referred to him briefly in connection with work that he had undertaken and for which his legal representatives accepted he had been remunerated, breached Principle 5 of the Code.
A complaint about another person named in the article was not considered since no complaint was received from that person about the publication of his name.
