The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint that an article published in The Irish Times in April 2025 breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice. The article is a two page magazine feature about an Irish novelist based on her appearances at two sold out events at the Cúirt Festival of International Literature in Galway. The complainant is the Irish poet Paul Muldoon, who appeared on a double bill with the novelist at one of these, the opening event of the festival.
The article is about the novelist. A sub headline in the online edition highlights her popularity, her fans drawn to her like “moths to a flame”. There is a reference to the “scrum” at the bookshop table afterwards with her books being “snatched up”. The article records enthusiastic comments to The Irish Times by readers queuing to have their books signed by her.
The complaint focusses on the final paragraph of the article which reads:
“Anyone for Paul Muldoon?” a volunteer calls at one point to the many remaining people in the queue, indicating to the desk where the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet is also set up to sign books. Nobody stirs.”
The complainant asserted that the article inaccurately and belittlingly suggests that at the signing “there was no interest whatsoever in my work compared to that of [the other author], a best-selling novelist”. He said this was emphasized by the additional placing of the complained of paragraph in bold in a readout in the print edition.
He said there was in fact evidence that the lines [queues] of people waiting to have their books signed by the two authors “ran out at around the same time” and that he had provided this evidence to The Irish Times and had asked for an apology and a retraction. He said he had received “unsatisfactory” responses.
The editor replied that he was satisfied the article was an accurate and truthful report of what the publication had witnessed. He noted that he had told the complainant in correspondence that “two people can view the same events very differently” and had given him an opportunity to submit a letter to the Editor “in which he could describe events as he saw them”. He noted, however, that the publication would not publish anything which “unfairly maligned our writer or mischaracterised her work”.
Referring to the complaint and the correspondence provided by the complainant as evidence to support it, the editor stated: “What he fails to contemplate is that it is possible for both things to be true. If as Mr Muldoon claims, the line of people waiting for him to sign a book ran out at the same time as [the novelist’s] line, that does not disprove that [The Irish Times] witnessed a moment where nobody responded to a call from a volunteer mentioning Mr Muldoon”.
Decision
The complainant and the novelist are well known and highly respected authors who shared a joint billing at the prestigious opening event of a renowned international literary festival. The article, since is about the novelist, and not the complainant, describes her performance, the reactions of members of the audience to her, and views expressed to the publication about her and her novels.
The last part of the article dwells upon events in the foyer of the venue after the readings. The “scrum” at the bookseller’s table is depicted as arising because some people had not realised the novelist would be doing a signing. There are interviews with people in her “snaking” signing queue.
The Press Ombudsman infers from the scene that is vividly depicted that a lot of excited people waited for some time to reach the novelist at her signing table, whereas even the intervention of a festival volunteer: “Anyone for Paul Muldoon?” cannot persuade a single person to visit the other signing desk to which the reader’s attention is now directed.
She notes the construction of the comment that at this desk “the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet is also set up to sign books”. The impression is not that his queue has run out or has yet to build. The image is created that Mr Muldoon has been sitting, pen in hand, at an empty desk. The placing of: “Nobody stirs” as the ending of the article magnifies the statement’s negative impact.
The complainant states that this is an untrue and inaccurate account of what actually happened. The Press Ombudsman finds the publication’s claim that both versions of what happened could be true to be disingenuous, based on the notion that the publication was simply referring as if in passing to the witnessing of “a moment” during a period of 25 minutes.
The Press Ombudsman notes that in an article which skilfully constructs its narrative, this is untenable. This moment cannot be minimalised. The poet’s situation is not just mentioned. Up until this point he has been in the shadows but now suddenly the spotlight is turned on him, the other author.
The moment is a key one, which is undoubtedly why the publication used it as a readout in bold under the main photograph of the two authors in the print edition. This placing means that Mr Muldoon’s photograph is directly above a paragraph that begins with a large red quotation mark and the question: “Anyone for Paul Muldoon?” and ends with “Nobody stirred”. It also means the complained of words appear on both of the two pages across which the article is spread.
The considerable dramatic impact of the scene relies on the strong implication that the poet, for all that he has a Pulitzer, has been eclipsed. He has been “set up” at a desk but his presence is redundant, such is the allure of the novelist. The striking lack of interest in him is used as a device to provide the ultimate proof of the novelist’s success and popularity: People queue for the latter. “Nobody stirs” for the former.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the editor asserts his belief that the author of the article, whom he describes as a respected and award-winning journalist, reported accurately and truthfully what she saw and heard. The publication does not offer any further evidence to back up the published account.
By contrast, the complainant supports his own account with statements from three significant and on the face of it impartial figures – the novelist’s publicist, the director of the festival and one of the booksellers. All of them were witnesses and the Press Ombudsman takes them to be objective ones. The publicist said the article’s claim was “of course factually incorrect”. The Director said it was “totally inaccurate”. The bookseller said he sold “a lot” of the poet’s books, and that he and his colleagues had the sense that “the queues finished at around the same time”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the complainant has established that Principle 1.1 of the Code was breached. She finds that the inaccuracy was significant, and that a correction should have been published, but was not, in breach of Principle 1.2 of the Code. The complainant asked for an apology and for a retraction but received neither, in breach of Principle 1.3 of the Code.
In the circumstances, the proposal that the complainant could send a letter to the Editor describing events “as he saw them” was entirely inadequate.
This editor of the Irish Times appealed the decision.