The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from Mr Noel O’Connor that the Limerick Post breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
The article, headlined “Schools soccer league lashed over ‘elite’ spend while average kids are sidelined”, is based on an interview with a named person who is described as being a coach with the Limerick District Schoolchildren League (LDSL). He criticised the league for a range of what he saw as shortcomings, notably prioritising top players instead of encouraging less experienced players, and thereby “ruining the sport” for the majority of players.
Mr O’Connor asserted that he spoke for “the entire coaching team of the LDSL academy”. Under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, he stated that the headline was inaccurate as it referred to a different organisation, and that the source for the article had never had any role in the LDSL. He said the word “elite” was inaccurate, that a reference suggesting that families pay membership fees to the league was a falsehood and that a sum mentioned as the spend made by another league was also false.
Under Principle 2 of the Code of Practice he stated that the person to whom the publication spoke said money could be better spent on bringing in a professional coach than on other things. He said that there was already a professional element in place, and that all of the voluntary coaches were “extremely professional in their attitude”.
The publication said the story was carried in good faith and in the public interest. It said the source for the story had been quoted as a coach in an earlier article and that this was not contradicted and that whether or not he had a role on the committee of the LDSL was not relevant. It said it had made “multiple significant efforts” to contact representatives of the
league, including its secretary, for comment, and that it had held off publication for eight weeks to give the LDSL the chance to respond. It said no response was provided.
It noted that the complainant had made a phone call to the publication but that he would not agree to be described as a representative of the league. It said the publication had offered the LDSL the right to respond pre-publication, and had done so again after Mr O’Connor made his complaint. It said it had followed due diligence at every stage, and it once again offered the complainant, acting as a representative of the league, or another person acting in this capacity, the opportunity to submit a written statement which would form part of a follow-up story to be carried in an equal or higher position in the publication as the original article. The complainant declined this offer.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman finds that the headline deploys the term “schools soccer league” to describe the Limerick District Schoolchildren League, and the full name of the organisation is given at the beginning of the first sentence in the article. It is clear that the headline refers to this rather than to any other organisation. She finds that the word “elite” in the headline is descriptive, contextually reasonable, and not inaccurate.
The publication depicted the source as a coach with the league, and this assertion is disputed by the complainant. The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication made every effort to check the facts of the story with the LDSL, and was entitled in the public interest to proceed when the organisation did not respond. The publication strove for truth and accuracy as required. There is no breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
As the complainant himself notes, the article quotes the source’s view on the question of professional coaching. It does not report his views as if they are fact. The Press Ombudsman finds there is no breach of Principle 2 of the Code. She notes that the publication provided ample opportunities to the league both before and after publication to offer its perspectives on the issues raised.
This decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.