Gript.ie and Village Magazine
On 18 July 2024 a sub-committee of the Press Council of Ireland established in accordance with Article 24.7.2 of the Press Council Constitution convened to consider a complaint concerning an article published by Village Magazine, in its February/March 2024 edition. Having reviewed the article and all the documentation submitted by both parties, the sub-committee decided that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice.
Complaint
Gript.ie complained that the article, headlined ‘Gript by lies, stirring hatred, and sometimes racist’ in print and ‘Racist Gript’s John McGuirk telling lies and stirring up hatred against immigrants’ online breached Principles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Practice. Gript.ie argued in its complaint that the article contained multiple false statements, conjecture presented as fact, and that reasonable care was not taken in checking facts before publication. It detailed 37 aspects of the article which it said breached the Code, and sought a retraction of the article and an apology.
Village Magazine said the article was substantially true and fair. It argued that the central points of the article were truthful, and that it had corrected a small number of substantial mistakes. It responded directly to the 37 points listed by Gript.ie in its complaint. It said that it had amended the online article, and had published a statement at the end of the piece that highlighted those amendments. The publication offered to extend this statement to outline further amendments that it had made to the article following Gript.ie’s formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman’s Office, and Village Magazine subsequently published the extended statement at the end of the online version of the piece. It also offered to include the full statement in its next print edition under the heading ‘Corrections’.
Gript.ie, while acknowledging that some amendments had been made to the article, said that the changes were insufficient to resolve their complaint.
As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation, it was referred to the Press Ombudsman for her consideration. The Press Ombudsman exercised her right to refer the complaint to the Press Council of Ireland. The Chair of the Press Council activated a sub-committee in accordance with Article 24.7.2 of the Press Council Constitution to consider the complaint.
Decision of the Press Council sub-committee
Principle 1
Principle 1 of the Code requires publications to “strive at all times for truth and accuracy”. The sub-committee finds that the article contained significant inaccuracies and misleading statements and that Village Magazine did not sufficiently strive for truth and accuracy in its reporting. Principle 1.3 of the Code states “When appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence”. While Village Magazine did attach a correcting statement to the end of the online article, that statement did not address every significant error or misleading statement in the piece. As a result, the sub-committee has determined that there is a breach of Principle 1.
Principle 2
Principle 2 of the Code requires that member publications distinguish between comment and fact. Publications are entitled to advocate strongly their own views on topics and matters of public interest. However, Principle 2.2 states that “Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they are fact”. This article was not labelled as a comment/opinion piece and the statements contained therein were presented as fact to the reader. The article also failed to sufficiently set out the factual basis for some of those statements. Consequently, the sub-committee has determined that there is a breach of Principle 2.
Principle 4
Principle 4 of the Code requires member publications to have respect for rights and to “take reasonable care in checking facts before publication”. Having reviewed the article the sub-committee concluded that it contained a number of significant inaccuracies and misleading statements, and therefore there was a failure to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. Consequently, the sub-committee has determined that there is a breach of Principle 4.
Other Elements of the Complaint
Gript.ie also complained that the article breached Principle 3 of the Code of Practice which requires member publications to “strive at all times for fair procedures and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information”. The sub-committee noted that Village Magazine had approached Gript.ie in advance of publication for comment on the proposed article. Whilst the time which Gript.ie was given to respond was tight, and the approach did not specify the full range of matters to be dealt with in the article, an offer to respond in advance of publication had been made by Village Magazine and Gript.ie did not avail of it. Therefore, the sub-committee decided that there is no breach of Principle 3.
Appeal of decision to Press Council of Ireland
The editor of Village Magazine appealed to the Press Council of Ireland the decision of the Press Council sub-committee to uphold the complaint.
The editor appealed the decision on the following grounds:
1. The procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints.
2. There had been an error in the Press Council subcommittee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The editor specifically cited the following six arguments in his appeal:
- Failure to separately consider complaint of John McGuirk.
- Failure to allow Village a second rebuttal.
- Failure to recognise that complex facts are not opinions.
- Failure to resolve all of the grounds of Gript.ie’s complaint: to reiterate instances of what was untrue or misleading (under Principle 1 of the Code), and of what confounded comment or conjecture with fact (under Principle 2 of the Code).
- Irrational to consider Gript.ie a person and to consider it personally affected.
- Failure to give reasons for Press Ombudsman’s recusal.
At its meeting on 19 September 2024 the Press Council considered the appeal on all of the grounds relied upon, and on the information, documentation and submissions made by both parties to the appeal. The three members of the sub-committee who considered the original complaint recused themselves from the appeal hearing.
Appeal Decision
- Failure to separately consider complaint of John McGuirk
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds (1) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints and (2) that there had been an error in the Press Council sub-committee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal on the grounds that it is a matter for the Press Ombudsman to determine, on receipt of a complaint, if a complainant is personally affected by an article. It is not open to a Press Council sub-committee to consider the matter further.
- Failure to allow Village a second rebuttal
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds (1) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints and (2) that there had been an error in the Press Council sub-committee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal on the grounds that there was no obligation on the Press Ombudsman, or the Press Council sub-committee, to make any further enquiries in relation to this complaint. In addition, it is not general practice to request a second rebuttal of a complaint from an editor.
- Failure to recognise that complex facts are not opinions
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds that there had been an error in the Press Council sub-committee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal on the grounds that it found no error in the application of the Code of Practice by the Press Council sub-committee on this point. It also found that the sub-committee displayed adequate reasoning in coming to its decision.
- Failure to resolve all of the grounds of Gript.ie’s complaint: to reiterate instances of what was untrue or misleading (under Principle 1 of the Code), and of what confounded comment or conjecture with fact (under Principle 2 of the Code)
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds (1) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints and (2) that there had been an error in the Press Council sub-committee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal on the grounds that it did not find that the procedures followed by the sub-committee in making its decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints.
Nor did it find any error in the application of the Code of Practice by the sub-committee on this point. It found that the sub-committee displayed adequate reasoning in coming to its decision.
- Irrational to consider Gript.ie a person and to consider it personally affected
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds (1) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints and (2) that there had been an error in the Press Council subcommittee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal on the grounds that it is a matter for the Press Ombudsman to determine, on receipt of a complaint, if a complainant is personally affected by an article. It is not open to a Press Council sub-committee to consider the matter further.
- Failure to give reasons for Press Ombudsman’s recusal
The editor submitted this part of his appeal on the grounds (1) that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints and (2) that there had been an error in the Press Council subcommittee’s application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
The Press Council decided to reject this part of the appeal as there is no obligation on the Press Ombudsman to explain a recusal from making a decision on a complaint.