The Press Ombudsman decided that an article published in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 23 February 2014 was significantly misleading and, in that respect, a breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
Ryanair complained, through its solicitors, about the article’s statement that “The flight crew refused to allow passengers leave the plane …” . It said that it was a failure of the handling agent to carry out its job at the airport that was responsible for the fact that passengers had to remain on the aircraft for safety and security reasons. Ryanair also complained about the use of what they claimed were inappropriate and sensationalist words and phrases, such as “kidnap ordeal” and “held hostage”
The newspaper said that the article was jocular and reflected, in exaggerated terms, what had happened. It also said that the use of some phrases, read in context,was not meant in the literal sense of the word, and was merely a light-hearted description of, and metaphor for, the feelings of the passengers.
The Press Ombudsman, however, decided that the article was significantly misleading. This was because of the unmistakeable implication – enhanced by the article’s exaggeration of what had happened as a ‘kidnap ordeal’ – that the refusal to allow passengers leave the airplane was the direct result of a decision by the Ryanair flight crew, rather than because of the action or inaction of the handling agent. It was also a telling illustration of the risks of breaching the Code of Practice involved in using exaggerated and prejudicial language – however “metaphorical” or “jocular” – in a news story about a serious event. The inclusion of a brief reference to an apology by the airline, in a context which did nothing to correct the unmistakeable implication that the airline bore full responsibility for the decision not to allow the passengers to leave the aircraft, did nothing to correct this misleading impression.
The use of the phrase“held hostage” was reported as the reaction of the passengers to their ordeal and was not, therefore, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, a breach of the Code.
