Codyre and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that The Irish Times took sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint about an article published on 21 January 2010 on stem cell research that the complainant said was inaccurate and misleading.

Mr Martin Codyre complained under Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals that an article on regenerative medical research based on stem cells contained untrue statements, including a statement that there were more than 200 medical treatments based on adult stem cell research. He complained that the article encouraged patients to opt for expensive and ineffective treatments, as well as diminishing support for entities working towards the development of other cures for diseases.

He also complained that a number of emails sent by him to the newspaper had been unacknowledged and unanswered. The newspaper had no record of receiving Mr Codyre’s emails, or of receiving a system-generated message that any emails from the complainant had been blocked.

This complaint was in all major respects identical with another complaint received about the same article from the Irish Stem Cell Foundation.

The newspaper said in response to Mr Codyre that this particular contributor’s column was written as opinion, and presented to readers in the same way as other opinions, which people with opposing opinions were free to disagree with by way of a letter to the editor. It also highlighted the fact that it had already offered the Irish Stem Cell Foundation the opportunity to write an article taking issue with the opinions expressed by their contributor.

Articles that are clearly comment or opinion articles enjoy a wide measure of protection under the Preamble to the Code of Practice, which states that the freedom to publish “includes the right of a newspaper to publish what it considers to be news, without fear or favour, and the right to comment on it.” While the right to comment has limits, complaints about breaches of the Code of Practice in such articles must be based on evidence that is unambiguous and compelling. As highlighted by the newspaper in its response to the complaint, viewpoints on embryonic stem cell research vary widely both in Ireland and internationally.

Determining the accuracy of disputed statements in this particular article, which was clearly an opinion piece, is therefore not a matter that is within the competence of the Press Ombudsman. In all the circumstances, the offer by the newspaper to publish an article that would highlight the alleged inaccuracies in the article under complaint, in response to a substantially identical complaint by the Irish Stem Cell Foundation, represents sufficient remedial action to resolve this complaint, particularly in view of the fact that the publication of such an article was sought by the complainant.

Although the absence of an acknowledgment or a response by a newspaper to a complaint submitted by email is not a breach of the Code of Practice, the apparent failure of the newspaper’s system to record emails proven to have been sent suggests the existence of a technical problem which might be investigated in the interests of the newspaper’s maintaining good relationships with its readers.

1 April 2010