The Press Ombudsperson has decided that the Journal.ie took sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint from Mr Michael McCarthy about an article it published in April 2026 and an amended article it published in response to a complaint from him.
The complainant stated that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) had been breached.
The Articles
In April the Journal.ie published an article the headline of which asked what was to happen to funds raised on a donation based platform for the purpose of buying supplies of food for people who had “brought parts of the country to a standstill” while taking part in fuel price protests the previous week.
The article noted that the fundraiser was set up by “Irish-based internet personality” Michael McCarthy and that it had rapidly raised funds far in excess of its original target. The article noted that he had a large social media following and that the publication's fact checking had formerly led to a number of “misleading claims he has made about migrants” being debunked.
It said that a week after the fundraiser was launched it was not clear how the money would be used or distributed.
It quoted from a social media page connected to the fuel protests on which someone at a protest had complained that despite all the funds raised “here we are starving”.
It noted that Mr McCarthy had paused donations, that he had pledged that “every penny spent will be published publicly”, and that he would hire a solicitor and an accountant “to make sure everything is handled properly and above board.”
The publication asked the complainant how he would verify that the money raised would be used for its stated purpose. It asked questions about safeguards, costs and the disbursing of the funds. It asserted that the complainant would not answer some questions “directly”. It gave an account of answers it said he had provided.
It stated that when asked what would be done with any surplus funds, the complainant had said that he was working on this and would use his social media channels to put the issue to a public vote.
Mr McCarthy made a complaint to the Journal.ie about the article. The publication made a number of amendments to the article and offered a right of reply. However, the complainant remained dissatisfied.
The Complaint
The complainant asserted that Principle 1 had been breached in multiple ways, the most significant of which was “selective quotation” from a social media thread “to create a demonstrably false impression”.
He provided a screen shot showing that the protester’s claim that they had been left “starving” had been followed later that day by the comment “we got food now”.
He said the page on the fundraising platform explained “exactly how the funds would be used”. He said the platform had been working with him on verification when the article was being written and that the process had been explained to businesses.
He said the article had carried his statement that he was considering donating funds to a children’s hospital, and that he would be holding a public vote. He said it was false to claim that he would not answer questions directly, as he had provided written explanations of key matters before the article was published.
He said that the publication had made amendments to the article “adding new negative content without right of reply”. He said that the article had framed one matter to imply “deliberate concealment of information that did not yet exist”.
He said that the original article had said a social media post had “since disappeared” from his profile when in reality stories on the platform automatically disappear after a known period. He said the false impression was given that he had deleted content related to the fundraiser “to conceal something”.
He said that after he complained to the publication it had amended the article but without acknowledging that this false impression had been given, and that the correction was “buried” and not given due prominence.
He said that the publication’s statement that online posts about migrants that he had made were misleading and had been debunked were “self referential”. He said the fact checks had been carried out by the publication itself without independent verification.
He said the publication had used “systematically selective evidence gathering” to produce a one sided account. He said the publication had ignored publicly available evidence.
The complainant said the publication breached Principle 2 because it presented its “own editorial judgement as objective fact rather than as the publication’s own position”.
The complainant asserted that the publication breached Principle 3 because after he complained, it “corrected one error while simultaneously adding new negative characterisations of me…without any right of reply”.
The complainant sought corrections, a right of reply and an apology. He produced a number of documents, screenshots and a video clip in support of his complaint.
The Response
The publication stated that the article was an explainer which looked at “specific questions that ordinary people have” about aspects of news. It said it was reasonable to “dig into” the question of what would happen to the funds.
It said the complainant had told the publication that “none of the money raised had been spent” so it was reasonable to state that it was not clear “how exactly the money will be used or distributed”. It noted that since the funds had not been released by the fundraising platform by the time the protests ended this gave rise to questions.
It said the complainant had commented on how the money could be distributed but that what would actually happen was still unclear.
It said its information gathering for the article including contacting businesses listed on the complainant’s website in connection with the scheme. Most had not responded. One said it had not in the end provided supplies, and the other said it had inquired about the scheme but had not got any follow-up.
Following the original complaint it received from Mr McCarthy, the publication amended the article to clarify that there was nothing unusual about the disappearance of a particular story from his profile. It specified the questions which it continued to assert he would not answer directly.
The publication told him it was satisfied with its fact checking and had not misrepresented the website he had set up. It had wished him well with his ideas for spending the funds and offered to write another article when that process was in train.
In response to the formal complaint to the Press Ombudsperson the publication reiterated its offer to the complainant of a follow up piece about the “good causes” to which he had put the funds “at his convenience”.
The Decision
The Press Ombudsperson notes that she has considered the additional material submitted by the complainant.
On Principle 1, the Press Ombudsperson finds that the publication set out as a matter of public interest to explore how funds donated to support controversial nationwide protests had been, and were to be, spent. She finds it exercised its editorial discretion to deem it newsworthy that the fundraising had continued after gardaí had ended a blockade which had been central to the protests.
The publication established that the complainant is an activist with a large social media following. The Press Ombudsperson finds it relevant that it had debunked claims he had made about contentious issues in the past. She finds that there was no requirement for it to establish any external verification for its own fact checking. It was entitled to ask searching questions and to comment when it believed it was not getting direct answers.
She finds that it was not misleading to refer to the “starving” road-blockers without noting that they had later been fed. The focus of the article was, as stated by the publication, the release and spending of the funds raised.
The Press Ombudsperson notes that in its amended article the publication clarifies that the deletion of a story on one of its social media profiles was normal rather than remarkable. The publication also listed specific questions to which it believed it had not been given answers. The Press Ombudsperson finds it did so to clarify claims made in the original article, rather than to introduce new material. There was no requirement to contact the complainant.
She finds that the way in which the publication indicated that it had amended the article is in keeping with the requirements of the Code of Practice. It was not, as asserted, “buried”.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsperson reiterates that the publication is entitled to rely on its own fact checking to establish the facts of a story. There is no breach of Principle 2.
On Principle 3, the Press Ombudsperson finds that the publication did not, as asserted, introduce “new negative characterisations” of the complainant, but rather specified the questions it believed he had not answered. Nor, as noted above in relation to Principle 1, was it required to contact him in relation to the amended article. There was no breach of Principle 3.
The Press Ombudsperson notes in particular that the publication offered a right of reply to the complainant at an early stage, and that it reiterated the offer during conciliation through the Office of the Press Ombudsman. She finds that between the publication of the amended article and this offer, the publication took sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaint.