A Man and the Westmeath Examiner

The Press Ombudsman has decided that an offer made by the editor of the Westmeath Examiner was sufficient to resolve a complaint by a man about a report of a civil court case in which he was the plaintiff.

The complainant said that that the report concerned had omitted thirteen elements of the court case, and that, because of this, the article was in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it was inaccurate and misleading. He also said that that the effect of these omissions was to portray him as a petty and unreasonable person.

In the reporting of civil cases it is inevitable that the parties concerned will frequently have divergent views as to the importance of anything that is said in court in evidence or by the judge. Reports of such cases will reflect a reporter’s and an editor’s best judgment about the significance of what is said in court on the day.

In such situations it is rarely possible to satisfy everyone. In response to this complaint, the editor offered to publish a clarification addressing a number of the points raised by the complainant, but not all thirteen, which would have resulted in a clarification almost the same length as, or possibly even longer, than the original report. The newspaper’s offer was rejected by the complainant on the grounds that it had not included all of his thirteen points.

The Press Ombudsman decided that the clarification offered by the editor represented a substantial and reasonable response to the issues raised by the complainant, and was therefore an offer of sufficient remedial action on his part to resolve the complaint.

21 February 2012