The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a man that The Irish Times breached the Code of Practice in an episode of its Inside Politics Podcast from late 2025. The hour long podcast consists of a one to one interview between the publication and the man. The subject was a book the man had published.
The Complaint
The man said the podcast breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 8 (Prejudice). He requested a retraction of the podcast and an apology for his treatment.
On Principle 1, the complainant said the podcast made untrue, inaccurate and misleading statements and presented “outdated or partial” information as fact.
He said it insinuated he was an anti-Semite, dismissed his research and attacked his integrity. He said it referred listeners to articles criticising his work that had been debunked.
On Principle 2, he said opinion, conjecture and selective interpretation were presented as fact. He said it was insinuated that he supported a person known to be “a virulent anti-Semite”. He said “long debunked claims” were reported as if credible.
On Principle 3, he said the interview lacked fairness, honesty and balance. He said he was invited “under the pretence” of discussing the book but the interview turned hostile. He said the podcast focussed on claims from “Antifa and hard-left critics” and refused to engage with his explanations. [Antifa refers to a broad left wing anti-fascist movement].
On Principle 4, he said that immediately after the podcast was recorded he emailed the publication stating that he did not consent to it being published, but got no reply. He said the publication had “knowingly amplified misinformation based on malicious misrepresentation and unfounded accusations”. He said it attacked his morals, research integrity and character, and caused significant harm to his reputation.
On Principle 8, he said that “by repeatedly insinuating without evidence that I am far-right or anti-Semitic…” the podcast was “deliberately structured” to stir up prejudice and cause grave offence.
He said the podcast was hostile and unbalanced and had led to “an avalanche of abuse online” as well as a damaging article being published elsewhere.
The Response from the Publication
The publication responded that it had given the complainant half an hour to “set out his stall” after which he was asked “more challenging” questions. It noted that he had been asked about his “heightened prose” including a reference to Ireland being “on fire”.
It said that the publication behaved normally and responsibly in putting points to the interviewee and giving him “ample time and opportunity” to respond. It said the questions were “entirely reasonable and proportionate”, noting that the complainant had “a track record of making trenchant and provocative comments on NGOs, media practices and immigration”. It said the interview stayed “well within the established bounds of interviewing practice on matters of contention and public interest.”
On Principle 1, the publication denied insinuating that the complainant was an anti-Semite. It said it had legitimately asked him about research that had been the subject of public controversy, had given him time to respond, and had treated him “in a respectful manner”.
On Principle 2, the publication said it had “merely asked questions” and had given the complainant ample opportunity to argue with and contest any statements with which he disagreed.
On Principle 3, it said the podcast was “rigorous” in its balance and fairness. It said that during a segment containing challenging questions he was given freedom and time to respond and that he was not prevented from being critical of the host.
On Principle 4, it noted that the complainant had not revealed to the Press Ombudsman that within 3 minutes of informing the publication that he did not consent to the podcast being published, he had sent another email stating: “If you do publish it, publish the whole thing – no edits.” It had proceeded to do so.
On Principle 8, it said there was nothing to support the complainant’s claim that the podcast had insinuated that he was “far right or anti-Semitic”, nor was it hostile or unbalanced, and nor did it rely on inaccurate or prejudicial material.
The Decision
The complainant submitted a considerable quantity of published and broadcast material to support his complaint, as well as a lengthy riposte to the publication’s response to his complaint.
The Press Ombudsman has reviewed this material but notes that her role is solely to decide if the material published included the breaches of the Code of Practice that were asserted in the formal complaint submitted to her Office by the complainant. Her primary sources are the material published, the complaint and the response from the publication. Social media platforms are outside her remit, and she cannot comment on other articles except in the context of formal complaints.
On Principle 1, the Press Ombudsman finds that the podcast was coherently structured to cover a range of areas relevant to the book and its author. It encouraged the complainant to respond to questions and gave him time to do so. It was not required to end up agreeing with him on every or indeed any point. This was a recording of a live discussion – not a platform for the complainant.
The Press Ombudsman finds no evidence that the complainant’s work or integrity came under attack. The publication was entitled to ask searching questions, to dissent from statements made by the complainant, and to make critical remarks. The publication neither asserted nor insinuated that he was anti-Semitic.
On Principle 2, she finds that it was relevant for the publication to bring up an interview the complainant had published on social media in the past, and to ask about his intentions in conducting it as he did. The publication neither stated nor insinuated that he shared his interviewee’s anti-Semitism. It was not obliged to accept the complainant’s view that articles it cited had been debunked.
On Principle 3, the Press Ombudsman finds no indication that there was any pretence involved in the invitation to be interviewed. The book covers contentious issues about matters of public interest, including immigration, anti-fascism and distrust of the media, about which the complainant has publicly expressed strong views. In a podcast lasting for an hour, it was unsurprising that a wide ranging and in-depth approach was taken.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the complainant was given the opportunity to talk at length about his formative life experiences and the different phases of his career. She finds that after he began to protest that the questions were unfair he was given time to express his feelings and views. The Press Ombudsman notes that whereas he became angry and accusatory, the publication continued to engage with him and to pursue the interview in a measured way.
On Principle 4, the Press Ombudsman is perturbed that the complainant did not reveal to her Office that he had countermanded his instruction to the publication that he did not consent to publication of the podcast.
She is unconvinced by his assertion that despite his second email he had made it clear he did not want the podcast to be published. She finds that his instruction that if the podcast was to be published it was to be published in full meant that he consented to publication on those terms, and she notes that the publication complied.
She finds no evidence of “knowingly amplified misinformation based on malicious misrepresentation and unfounded accusations” and no attacks. She finds that the publication did nothing to harm the complainant’s reputation.
On Principle 8, she notes that while the interview included discussion about what was meant by the term “far-right” it was left to the complainant to describe if he so wished his own position on what he called “the broad eco-system on the right”. There was no “insinuating without evidence”. The Press Ombudsman finds that far from setting out to stir up prejudice and cause grave offence as asserted by the complainant, the publication tried to have a discussion about difficult issues that avoided such outcomes.
The Press Ombudsman finds that The Irish Times did not breach the Code of Practice in respect of any of the Principles cited.