Susan McKay: Politicians and public can rely on ‘exacting, nuanced, supple’ press code to make complaints
Ireland's Press Ombudsman Susan McKay speaking at the Shared Island Dialogue event in the Convention Centre Dublin. Picture: Sasko Lazarov/ RollingNews.ie
When the High Court in the North, in the strongest terms, struck down a recent defamation case brought by a politician against a freelance journalist, the journalist, Malachi O'Doherty, commented that the court had delivered "a quare slap on the bake" to the litigant and his party. He also spoke of the stress and worry he had gone through during the years it had taken for the case to come to court. The costs would potentially have been ruinous.
You won't get a quare slap on the bake from the Press Ombudsman. Complainants and editors alike will get a swift and thoroughly reasoned response based clearly on the Principles of the Press Council's Code of Practice. There is no charge for using our service, and there will be no hefty bill for either party at the end of the complaints process. Our process is demonstrably in the public interest. It gives people a right to have their say and to be taken seriously. It enables them to hold the press to account, just as the press endeavours to hold those with power in our society to account.
It is no secret that back in 2008 it was the fact that the then Irish government was considering introducing statutory regulation of the press that led the press industry and others to devise a self-regulatory system for which each publication and its journalists take responsibility. Membership is voluntary. The Code of Practice was written by editors and adopted by the Press Council.
The role of the Press Ombudsman is to interpret the 11 principles of the Code, the most frequently invoked of which is Principle 1, which obliges the press to strive for truth and accuracy. Other principles about which I frequently get complaints include Distinguishing Fact and Comment, Privacy, and Prejudice. The Code is at once exacting, nuanced and supple. Once I have issued a decision, a complainant or an editor can consider appealing it to the Press Council on procedural grounds.
Hard times have become normal times for the press. Our members are struggling to survive on budgets that have been decimated, in large part by the increasing dominance of massively wealthy and unregulated global social media companies. Yesterday [Wednesday] the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts Sports and Media held a meeting of non-court based conflict resolution mechanisms for the handling of media related complaints. I was there to talk about my role as Press Ombudsman.
It was shocking to hear from national and local newspapers the raw facts about how dangerous threats of defamation are to their ability to do their work of researching and producing news and commentary. "Legal fees are killing us," one editor said. "One half decent action could close us down." Another spoke of "sleepless nights" brought about by letters threatening to sue which were issued simply on the basis of powerful individuals knowing that the paper was going to publish a story about them.
They spoke of the chilling effect - the inevitable hesitation when it came to writing about those known to have pockets deep enough to sustain lengthy legal suits even while knowing they were without basis or merit, the tendency for financial reasons to settle actions rather than fight them, even when the publication felt strongly that its story was right and that its publication would be in the public interest. This is extremely demoralising for those who believe in serious journalism.
The Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman jointly constitute a non-statutory body. However, in the area of defamation, we are recognised in statute under Section 44, schedule 2 of the Defamation Act of 2009, which requires us to ensure freedom of expression and to protect the public interest. This status confers qualified privilege on our decisions.
We respect the right of individuals to protect their good name and to go to law if they choose to do so. We accept that people are entitled to seek to be financially compensated for being wronged by the press.
However, we believe that politicians and other public figures should pause for serious thought before deciding that the only way to deal with a grievance about how a publication or journalist has represented them is to threaten defamation. Politicians in particular need to ask themselves if it is really in the interests of the democracy to take an action that could bankrupt a newspaper. They are public servants - is it in the public interest to stifle debate and shut down investigations into abuses of power?
I am struck by the many reasons people give for making complaints to my office. In some cases, I feel they might (had they chosen to go that way) have had a strong case to bring to court. They chose the route of using the Press Council's Code of Practice because they believed in a process that is founded upon a commitment to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards, and they trust us to get redress for them if those standards are not met.
Our Code is based, not on assessing the monetary value of damage, but on upholding ethical values. It is founded on upholding human rights, on civility and decency.
All some people want is an acknowledgement that a publication got something wrong. They might want a correction. They might want an apology. Often complaints can be resolved through our conciliation process run by Case Manager Bernie Grogan.
Others want a full Press Ombudsman's decision to right a wrong, clarify a story, or clear a name. It might or might not be a matter of national importance but it matters to them, to their family, their community - our society.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
