1196/2022 – A Number of Complainants and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has not upheld a number of complaints that The Irish Times breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

Thirteen complaints were received by the Office of the Press Ombudsman about an article published in The Irish Times on 11 December 2021. The 13 complaints were similar in nature and were made under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. The complaints procedures of the Office provide that where a number  of  similar complaints  about an article are made under the same Principles of the Code, the Office will establish a ‘lead’ complainant, and the complaints will be processed through the lead complainant.  In this case, a lead complainant who was established withdrew, and the complaint was then finalised through a second lead complainant.

The article that led to the complaints was an opinion column with the heading “The three anti-vaccine types – egoists, paranoiacs and fascists”.

The complainants objected to a claim found in the article that “vaccine sceptics form an objective threat to society”.    They argued  that the column dehumanised a whole section of society and  failed to “substantiate on an evidential basis (its) claims that this unvaccinated “egoist” cohort of the population present an objective threat to our hospital service”. They stated that the column failed to explore the reasons why people decide not to take a vaccine, and quoted from  a UK parliamentarian who had explained that “there are a whole range of people who for legitimate reasons are unable or find it difficult to access or choose not to get the vaccine”, and that the article therefore presented a distorted picture of people that are physically fit and healthy posing a danger to the hospital system. They said that by categorising and limiting to three ‘types’ of ‘vaccine sceptics’ that pose an ‘objective threat to society’ the article  intended to or was  likely to cause grave offence and stir up hatred against people who may not be able or chose not to take  the vaccine.

The editor of The Irish Times defended the article. In regard to the claim that Principle 1 had been breached he said that the columnist was entitled to express his view that vaccine sceptics are an objective threat to society. The editor said, “It is a view founded on readily available evidence of the pressure that cases of Covid-19 among unvaccinated people had placed on the health care system”. He referred to  a number of  articles published before the article under complaint  in The Irish Times  that showed just how much of a strain unvaccinated people were placing on hospital services .  The editor said that the strong opinions expressed in the article were based on the reality of the unfolding situation and were not in breach of Principles 1 or 2 of the  Code.

In regard to Principle 8 the editor noted that the column had stated that vaccine sceptics (as opposed to people who cannot take the vaccine)  are “not all the same …..”,   He also said that the article qualified and developed an argument that did  not target anyone under the criteria outlined in Principle 8 of the  Code.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for  a decision.

Principle 1

Principle 1.1 states

In reporting news and information, the press shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy.

I can find no evidence either in the article or in the complainants’ submissions that the article contained any inaccuracy. The complainants disagreed with the column’s conclusions about the reason why people decline to get vaccinated. Disagreement cannot be the basis to uphold a complaint that Principle 1 has been breached. A complainant must provide evidence of inaccuracies. This has not happened in this complaint and therefore I conclude that Principle 1 was not breached.

Principle 2

Principle 2.2 states

Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they are fact.

The complainants stated that the column’s claim that “egoists (one of the categories identified in the column as opposed to vaccinations) are a dangerous burden on the hospital system” was a breach of the requirement found in Principle 2. This claim was made in an opinion column and readers would have been aware that what they were reading was the opinion of the columnist. I can find no breach of Principle 2 as what was stated in the article was clearly an opinion or comment.

Principle 8

Principle 8 states

 The press shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

It is quite clear that those who either oppose or cannot be vaccinated are not a homogeneous group and cannot be categorised as fitting into any of the groups mentioned in Principle 8. No evidence has been presented that the column caused grave offence or stirred up hatred towards any of the groups identified in Principle 8. Therefore, there was no breach of this Principle.

3 March 2022