The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint by Father Pádraig McCarthy about a book review published in The Irish Times in December 2024. The complainant states that the article breaches Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. The article is a review of a book called “Vatican Spies: From the Second World War to Pope Francis”.
Under Principle 1 of the Code, the complainant asserts in his complaint that the publication makes the untrue claim, published as fact, that “… twice a year every priest reports on his parish to the local bishop and which detail then finds its way to the Vatican”. He states that the publication has not ensured the truth and accuracy of this allegation and that it failed to correct it promptly when it was brought to its attention, and that it had not published a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response, promptly and with due prominence. He notes that the review concludes that “… Vatican Spies does not deal in fantasies. It is thoroughly researched …”.
Under Principle 2 of the Code, he asserts that conjecture has been reported as fact.
Under Principle 4 of the Code, he asserts that an unfounded accusation has been published without reasonable care in checking facts before publication.
The publication refutes the claims, stating that the article was prominently labelled as a book review, and that the article contained a summary of the book and the reviewer’s own view on it. It places the statement singled out by the complainant in the context of the paragraph from which it is taken and states that it is clear that the review is summarising what the author of the book states rather than giving the opinion of the reviewer. The publication says that there is nothing for it to correct. It reiterates that the review accurately summarises material from the book, and that a review requires the inclusion of the view of the reviewer. It states that the reviewer had clearly read the book and taken reasonable care in writing the review. It says it received no other complaints from priests, or any other readers about the article.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes at the outset that the complainant submitted a considerable volume of material in support of his complaint at various stages of the process. She has read and taken into consideration this material, and responses to it by the publication, while focussing on the content of the formal complaint and the publication’s responses to it.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the quotation cited as inaccurate by the complainant is clearly presented as the opinion of the author of the book, rather than that of the publication. She finds that it is essential to consider the quotation in the context in which it was published in the review. She notes that it is not the role of a publication to check the accuracy of every claim made in a book, and that the opinion given by the publication in the final paragraph, cited by the complainant, represents an overview of the book, and does not mean that the publication accepts as true every claim made in the book. There is no breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
The publication, as noted above, clearly attributes to the author of the book the statement asserted by the complainant to be untrue. There is no presentation of conjecture as fact. The Press Ombudsman finds that Principle 2 of the Code is not breached.
It is not the role of a publication to check that everything published in a book is true, or that everything to which it refers in a review is true, though the publication may offer an overall opinion, which in this case is that the book “does not deal in fantasies” and that it is “thoroughly researched”. There is no evidence that the publication has knowingly published an unfounded accusation. The Press Ombudsman does not find that the publication has published anything that could be construed as interfering with the complainant’s right to his good name. There is no breach of Principle 4.
The Press Ombudsman notes that while insisting it had no reason to publish a correction as sought by the complainant, the publication offered him the opportunity to write a letter to be considered for publication, and that he submitted versions of such a letter. However, the parties could not agree on the wording of the letter.
This decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.