A Doctor and the Irish Daily Mail
The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Daily Mail made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint made by a doctor about two articles published on 10 April 2010 following the Annual Conference of the Irish Medical Organization.
The doctor complained that the articles were misleading and in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and 3 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals because they were deceptive or exaggerated.
The doctor complained about a number of specific allegations he said were in the article, and about the lack of coverage of some issues that were raised at the Conference.
The newspaper said that it did not make the specific allegations that the doctor said it made, and repeated its offer, made before the intervention of the Office of the Press Ombudsman, to publish a letter from the complainant.
On considering the complaint, the Press Ombudsman found that a number of specific allegations complained of were not made in the article. The doctor complained that the article suggested that doctors take home €240,000 per year: the article stated that “the State’s senior doctors can earn up to €240,000 per year”. He complained that the article stated that there were four bars at the conference: the article stated that “Delegates enjoyed no less than four drinks receptions”. He complained that the article suggested that everyone was eating to excess at the meeting: the article stated that delegates enjoyed a buffet supper on the Thursday evening and would enjoy a five-course meal on the Saturday evening. He complained that the article indicated that all GPs were charging €60 for a quick visit: the article called on doctors to “Agree to reforms and agree to charge the men and women of this country less than €60 for a quick GP visit.”
In all of the circumstances, and although the article highlighted factual information about the medical profession and about the conference in a manner that was obviously unwelcome to the complainant, the offer made by the newspaper to publish a letter from the complainant constituted sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint. Such a letter could have adequately addressed any matters at the conference to which the complainant felt the articles had given undue prominence or had not adequately covered.
18 August 2010