Drury and the Sunday Tribune

Complaint

Mr Paul Drury, Managing Editor, Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited, complained that two articles published in the Sunday Tribune of 23 November 2008, and a reader’s letter to the editor published in a later edition, were in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice. The 23 November articles had, he said, contained serious and damaging inaccuracies about articles published in Ireland on Sunday, of which he was then editor, before it was absorbed into the Irish Mail on Sunday. He also complained that the articles referred incorrectly to the newspaper’s title. Mr Drury complained directly, on two occasions, to the writer of one of the articles and to the newspaper’s editor, but did not receive a response.

The Sunday Tribune accepted that the articles referred incorrectly to the newspaper’s title and offered to publish a clarification to that effect. It maintained, however, that the comments made in its articles were justified in the light of an apology read out in court in the week before publication which, together with a substantial cash sum, featured in a settlement of legal proceedings for defamation against Ireland on Sunday. The complainant found the limited clarification offered unacceptable.

Decision

One of the articles in the Sunday Tribune to which the complainant primarily took exception said that the newspaper then edited by the complainant had “printed a scurrilous lie,” had “claimed” that the plaintiff had had an affair with a Government Minister, and had implied that this was the reason why she had received a lucrative PR contract.

In an agreed apology read out in the High Court a few days prior to the publication of this article, however, counsel for Associated Newspapers had stated that a number of articles it published had “suggested” that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair with the Minister. The apology went on to say that “This allegation was entirely false”, and described as “equally false” the “suggestion” that the plaintiff “had secured valuable contracts on the basis of such an affair.”

In the light of this, the opinion of the Press Ombudsman is that the interpretation in the Sunday Tribune article of the apology read out in the High Court on behalf of Associated Newspapers, in the context of a robust commentary by one newspaper about another, did not distort or mislead, or contain significant errors, and therefore did not breach Principle 1 of the Code of Practice. As the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence that the newspaper had knowingly published matter based on malicious representation or unfounded accusation, or that the writer had failed to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication, the articles do not present a breach of Principle 4.

For the same reasons, the letter to the editor complained of did not breach the Code of Practice.

Although the Sunday Tribune’s failure to respond to the complainant’s original letters was not in the spirit of the Code of Practice, and did not facilitate attempts to reach an agreed resolution of the matter, its offer, after it was approached by the Office of the Press Ombudsman, to publish a clarification in relation to the name of the title of the newspaper involved, was an offer of sufficient remedial action in respect of this part of the complaint.

5 February 2009