Professor Crown and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that The Irish Times made an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by Professor John Crown about breaches of several Principles of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals in an article about the illness of the Minister for Finance published on 30 December 2009.

Professor Crown complained under Principle 1 of the Code of Practice that the article in question was inaccurate. He further complained under Principle 2 that a conjecture by the author was reported as fact, under Principle 3 that the article had been unfair to him, and under Principle 4 that an implication, which he stated had been contained in the article, had affected his good name.

Professor Crown requested a published clarification which, he said, would resolve the issue to his satisfaction. Such an offer was made immediately by the newspaper but subsequently withdrawn and replaced by an offer of a right of reply, which Professor Crown found unacceptable. Following referral by Professor Crown of his complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman, the newspaper offered the text of a clarification, which he also found unacceptable. The newspaper then drafted and offered to publish a more detailed clarification. Professor Crown found the second clarification unacceptable because, he said, it did not contain a personal statement of retraction and regret from the writer of the article, and had therefore not met the ‘correct-apologise-retract’ standard he wanted to insist on. Professor Crown drafted a further, more detailed clarification which was deemed unacceptable by The Irish Times on the grounds that their second clarification had adequately addressed each of the points in his initial complaint.

Although immediate publication by the newspaper of a clarification might have faciliated an agreed resolution of the complaint, the differences, if any, between the clarification eventually offered and the clarification sought by Professor Crown in his original complaint were insubstantial. His original complaint did not include a request for a personal statement of retraction and regret by the author of the article. In these circumstances the offer to publish the second proposed clarification represented sufficient remedial action on the part of the newspaper to the complaint under Principles 1, 2.2, 3 and 4. No further action is therefore required.

Professor Crown also maintained under Principle 2.3 that the editor should, because of a previous political association, have recused herself from involvement in the decision to withdraw the newspaper’s initial offer of a clarification. As there was no evidence that this decision had been inappropriately influenced by undisclosed interests, this complaint is not upheld.

11 June 2010