Schregardus and the Irish Mail on Sunday

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the publication of a statement by the Irish Mail on Sunday was sufficient remedial action on its part in relation to a number of complaints made by an Air Traffic Controller about an article based on her blog and published during a dispute by Air Traffic Controllers.

Ms Melanie Schregardus complained under Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and (4) Respect for Rights of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals about an article published in the Irish Mail on Sunday on 24 January 2010, which she said misrepresented the views she had expressed in a blog. While the newspaper said that it stood over the contents of the article, it apologised for not advising Ms Schregardus, in advance of publication, that its article was going to be based on her blog. The newspaper offered to publish a clarification but, when a form of words could not be agreed by the parties, it published a statement about the article which had earlier been deemed unacceptable by Ms Schregardus, and she also complained about this.

The newspaper’s statement made it clear that its interpretation of Ms Schregardus’s blog did not reflect her personal views. It also said that it regretted that it had not been made clear to her during previous contacts that the newspaper intended publishing an article that would focus on the contents of her blog. This, it said, was a breach of its own policy.

The contents of the statement, in the context of the fact that the article was based on a blog or public diary readily available on the internet, amounted to a significant qualification of the original story, and in that respect represented sufficient remedial action on the part of the newspaper to resolve the complaint. However, the complainant’s objection to the publication of a statement to which she had not agreed was reasonable, and publications generally should be aware that they take any such action at their own risk, including the risk of a decision to uphold the complaint concerned regardless of what may have been unilaterally published by way of clarification, correction or apology.

22 March 2010