O’Farrell and the Irish Examiner ... decision by the Press Council of Ireland
Mr O’Farrell complained that an article published in the Irish Examiner of February 1, 2008 that reported that an MRSA Awareness Group was planning to take legal action against the HSE, and which was combined with a report of a separate event — an inquest into the death of his father — was misleading and therefore a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice (Truth and Accuracy). Mr O’Farrell complained that the article conveyed the impression that his family were among those threatening legal action against the HSE, whereas the complainant and his family were not among those threatening legal action as they had been entirely satisfied with the treatment their father had received, and had stated this at the inquest.
The newspaper responded that the combination of the two news items concerned had not been meant to imply that the family of the deceased were among those contemplating legal action, that it accepted that the family concerned were completely satisfied with the treatment of their father in a named hospital, and that evidence of the family at the inquest had been omitted purely for space reasons. It first offered to publish a clarification pointing out that the family of the deceased was happy with the quality of care in both hospitals concerned but subsequently the editor, accepting that the family did not wish for any further publicity, offered to meet the complainant personally to see what other form of resolution might be acceptable to him. The complainant declined both offers, insisting that what he wanted was a decision by the Press Ombudsman.
In the view of the Press Ombudsman, the offer by the editor firstly to publish a clarification and, when this was turned down, to meet with the complainant in an effort to find a resolution to his complaint that might be satisfactory to him, amounted to constructive and sufficient action on its part to resolve the complaint. In the circumstances, no further action is required under the Code of Practice.
It should be emphasised that relatively uncomplicated complaints such as this one should require a decision by the Press Ombudsman only after all other reasonable options, including options that do not necessarily involve publication, have been fully explored. A decision not to engage in this process militates substantially against a satisfactory outcome.
Mr O’Farrell appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.
At its meeting on 14th November the Council gave careful consideration to the application to appeal but decided that the submission did not provide adequate grounds either in relation to new evidence or to any error in procedure or in the application of the principles of the code to warrant a full consideration of the appeal.
The Decision of the Press Ombudsman is therefore upheld.
November 14, 2008.
