Dwyer Family and the Irish Daily Star

Complaint

A complaint was received from a representative of the Dwyer family about an article published in the Irish Daily Star on 17 April reporting on events associated with the death of their son, Michael, in Bolivia. They complained that the headline “Irishman shot in plot to kill president” and the sub-headline “Mercenary ‘dead’ after foiled Bolivian assassination bid” were in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. The family complained in particular that the headline was presented as fact, that the sub-headline did not clarify that the alleged plot was against the Bolivian President, and that the use of punctuation around the word ‘dead’ was inappropriate.

The newspaper accepted that while reporting on tragedies such as the death of Mr Dwyer is harrowing for the family and friends left behind, it had strived at all times for truth and accuracy in its report. It also argued that while it would wish to have had more detail in its initial reports of the matter, such detail was not available.

Decision

While the accuracy or inaccuracy of this report is impossible to establish at this juncture, the headlines reflected the material contained in the body of the article, which was clearly based on unconfirmed reports. Since it is impossible to verify the accuracy or otherwise of unconfirmed reports, it is not possible for the Press Ombudsman to make a decision about the accuracy or otherwise of the headline and sub-headlines.

The use of quotation marks in the sub-headline to indicate an unconfirmed report, and the repeated notification to readers in the first and in a number of subsequent paragraphs that the material in the article was based on unconfirmed reports from a range of sources, some of them anonymous is, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, sufficient evidence that the requirements of Principle 2 have been adequately observed. In these circumstances the complaint under Principle 2 is not upheld.

21 August 2009