McLoughlin and the Sunday World

Complaint

Ms McLoughlin complained that an article published in The Sunday World on 16 March 2008 stated that her late partner was a drug trafficker, which the complainant said breached Principles 1.1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 4 (Respect for Rights) and 5.3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice. She stated that her late partner had never been convicted of any drug-related offence.

Responding to the complaint, the newspaper said that the statement in question had been based on information from its reporter’s sources. It also argued that it had to be read in conjunction with a number of previous articles, which reported on the criminal record of the complainant’s late partner, and which alleged that he had links to drug smugglers and criminals suspected of drug trafficking.

Decision

Newspapers are entitled, under Principle 2 of the Code of Practice, to publish conjecture, rumours and unconfirmed reports as long as they are not reported as fact. In the article complained of, the statement that the complainant’s late partner was a drug trafficker is clearly either conjecture, a rumour, or an unconfirmed report. The earlier articles, which the newspaper claims support their description of the murdered man, cannot be relied on to support its case because the statements they contain are also unconfirmed reports, presented in some cases as fact, and in any case do not describe him as a drug trafficker. The unqualified publication by a newspaper of a statement as fact is not necessarily sufficient evidence of its factuality, particularly where the statement is contested or controversial, or is based primarily on inferences drawn from other unconfirmed reports.

The statement that is the subject of the complaint in this instance is presented as a fact, in breach of Principle 2.1. Insofar as it represents the newspaper’s opinion about the deceased man, or was based on the newspaper’s sources, this should have been clarified at the time of publication.

On the evidence available, it is not possible to come to any conclusion about whether or not the article breached Principle 1. There was no breach of Principle 4 or Principle 5.3.

30 June 2008

The newspaper appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland