The Press Ombudsman has not upheld a complaint from a man that an article published by Cork Beo breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
The article was published in August 2025 and was about claims that gangs were setting dogs on cats resulting in mutilations and deaths.
The man said the article breached Principle 1 of the Code because it did not strive for truth and accuracy and Principle 2 because it did not distinguish between fact and comment and had accepted rumour and unconfirmed reports as fact. He specifically referred to a paragraph about an incident in a named suburb in which, the publication stated, two greyhounds were involved in a “deliberate mauling”.
The man complained to the publication that while this had happened it was an “unfortunate accident”.
In its response to the man’s formal complaint the publication stood over the information it had published. It noted that while it had not identified anyone linked to the incident or its exact location, it had sought information from the Gardai and had spoken with several animal protection groups. It noted that the complainant, while disputing the nature of the incident, acknowledged that it had occurred. It said the article was about a matter of public interest.
Decision
This article proposes that a pattern of similar incidents has occurred in Cork involving violent cruelty to animals. The Press Ombudsman agrees that this is a matter of public interest.
She notes that the publication spoke with animal protection groups and sought information from the Gardai. It sought to establish truth and accuracy. She notes that while the complainant states that the mauling by the dogs was an accident, he does not dispute that it happened. Principle 1 has not been breached.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication states that its sources included named animal protection groups which expressed concern about the practices depicted in the article. It referred to confirmed reports. She finds no basis for the complainant’s assertion that the publication relied on rumour or unconfirmed reports or that it failed to distinguish between fact and comment. There is no breach of Principle 2.