1220/2022 - An Author and the Irish Examiner

The Press Ombudsman has not upheld a complaint that the Irish Examiner breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3  (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

The Irish Examiner published a highly critical review of a newly published travel book. The author of the book wrote to the editor of the Irish Examiner expressing his opinion that the review portrayed his book and him personally “in a shockingly derogatory manner”. The author went on to outline a number of inaccuracies which he said were to be found in the review. He also objected to the publication of a photograph of himself which accompanied the article. He concluded by asking the editor to amend or retract the article in order “to limit the damage the article has done”.

The Irish Examiner responded to the author stating that the review “is the honestly held opinion of our writer and has no malicious intent”.  As a gesture of goodwill the newspaper agreed to remove the review from Google search, but not from its website. The newspaper also said that the author’s photograph had been removed from its website as soon as the issue of its use had been raised. The newspaper concluded that “we never make conditional agreements linking picture use to positively-biased content and … our staff did not agree to this at the time”.

The author emailed the Office of the Press Ombudsman. He said that the article “was a clear personal attack on (his) character”. He went on to say that “the article contains numerous factual inaccuracies and has taken quotes and incidents completely out of context in order to portray (him) in a negative light”.  He objected to the publication of a photograph of himself as he had only given permission for the photograph’s use on the understanding that the review would be “favourable”. He stated that the publication of the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper made a formal submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman defending the publication of the review.

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

Principle 1

Principle 1 requires the press to be accurate in what it publishes. The author challenged the accuracy of several parts of the review.

The newspaper stated that the reviewer only dealt with matters discussed in the travel memoire and that there had been no invention of facts. The newspaper also said that the review was “an honest evaluation of the book’s content, style and merit”.

There is no question but that a review can be highly critical of a work being scrutinised. The review published in the Irish Examiner was very critical of the book, but in my view the disagreement between complainant and publisher was primarily about the interpretation of facts rather than the facts themselves. For this reason I find that there was no breach of Principle1.

Principle 3

Principle 3.2 states:

3.2 The press shall not obtain information, photographs or other material through misrepresentation or subterfuge, unless justified by the public interest.

The author claimed that he provided a photograph of himself for publication on the understanding that a review of his work would be favourable. He claimed that as the review was not favourable there was a breach of Principle 3.2.  The newspaper denied any such reassurance was given to the author and that, furthermore, no such assurance is ever given.

When a book is submitted to a newspaper for review it is fair to assume that the purpose for which the book is submitted is to draw readers’ attention to the book. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable for a publication to include an image of the author of the book in its review. This assumption cannot be based on whether the review is favourable or not. For this reason I find that there was no breach of Principle 3. As soon as the Irish Examiner became aware that the author was objecting to the inclusion of his photograph the image was removed from the online version of the review.

Principle 4

Principle 4 states:

Everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name.  The press shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, and must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

It was the author’s view that the negative review damaged his reputation and that there was a failure to check facts before publication. The newspaper’s view was that the review was based on  events described in the author’s travel memoire. As with Principle 1 there is disagreement about the interpretation of events recounted in the book, but I do not think any divergence can be attributed to malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. The divergence is based on the reviewer’s interpretation of the facts described in the book. I do not find that there is any breach of Principle 4.

Principle 5

Principle 5 is the section of the Code that protects the right of privacy. When an author writes a book and the publisher of the book submits it for review the author’s expectations of privacy are circumscribed. This is particularly the case when the book is a memoire. In the book review that is the subject of this complaint  the subject of the book is the author’s experiences in travelling abroad and his reaction to customs and practices he encountered during his travels. Whist recognising that the author was deeply disappointed by the negative  review his book received I can find no evidence of a breach of his privacy.    

 

1 April 2022

Note:   The complainant has requested that the decision be published in a manner which protects his identity.