The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a woman’s complaint about an article published in the Irish Examiner in May 2025. The opening line of the article states that a named TD “who has been critical of government over wasteful spending asked for a La-Z-Boy recliner to be supplied for his Leinster House office …”. The complainant said the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Accuracy) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. The TD gave his permission for the complaint to proceed.
On Principle 1, the complainant said the article was misleading as it did not say how the publication calculated the cost – which was included in the headline – and whether or not the expense was actually incurred. On Principle 2, the complainant said the article’s “tone and presentation blur the line between objective reporting and implied criticism”.
On Principle 3, the complainant said the article omitted critical context. She said requests made by other TDs got less scrutiny, implying that this TD was “uniquely excessive”. On Principle 4, the complainant said the article gave a damaging impression of the TD, presenting him as wasteful or entitled. She said there had been no effort to represent his perspective and the article was unbalanced.
The publication replied that in relation to Principle 1, the article was accurate, that the TD had specified that he wanted a La-Z-Boy chair and that the average cost of such a chair was as reported. On Principle 2, it said the article was located in the website’s news/politics section and that it did not include journalistic comment. It noted that the article included a response from Oireachtas staff stating that such items were “not commonly purchased”.
On Principle 3, it said the article had given a faithful and accurate account of the situation, had offered a right of reply and had included relevant background information. On Principle 4 it said all reasonable care had been taken in preparation of the article. It said the TD had been given an opportunity to comment, and his comments were included.
Decision
The Freedom of Information Act has given the press a powerful tool with which to hold people in public office to account. In this instance, there is no claim of wrongdoing. What a trawl of records has yielded nevertheless makes for an essentially light-hearted story which offers a lesson in what it is to be under the scrutiny of the public eye. It is a story that plays to the public’s enjoyment of the blushes of politicians.
There is nothing subtle about the brand name “La-Z-Boy”. It suggests indolence. The Press Ombudsman has no difficulty in understanding why the publication spotted irresistible news value in the revelation that a newly elected TD, who had already taken the government to task for wasteful spending, had asked that he be provided by the State with this particular piece of furniture. She finds it unsurprising that while the article includes other requests from other TDs it used this one as the headline and the lead into the article. There is no suggestion that he is, in fact, indolent, no claim that funds were, in fact, spent.
The Press Ombudsman finds there is nothing misleading about the article which is a straightforward news report based on comprehensive research which is set out, including comments by way of right of reply from the TD. There is no breach of Principle 1. This is not a comment piece and there is no element of comment within it. There is no breach of Principle 2. There is nothing to suggest that the facts presented in the story were obtained using anything other than fair procedures and honesty. There is no breach of Principle 3. The TD was offered and availed of his right to reply. There is no breach of Principle 4.
18 July 2025