874/2021 - Mr. David O'Brien and DublinLive.ie

Press Ombudsman upholds complaint by Mr David O’Brien.  The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint made by Mr David O’Brien that Dublinlive.ie breached Principle  2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland. The Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence to make a decision that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) had been breached, and has not upheld  the complaint made under Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).

Upheld Part of Complaint

On 26 June 2021, DublinLive.ie published an article in which it was claimed that a named “top tier member” of an organised crime gang had been “spotted in Dublin”. The article claimed that the gang member had “attended a party at the weekend at a private residence in Dublin city centre”. In the body of the article this information was attributed to an unnamed source

Mr David O’Brien, who is married to the mother of the man named in the article, wrote to the editor of DublinLive.ie stating that the article breached Principle 2  (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) due to the reliance in the article on unconfirmed reporting, conjecture and assumption.

As Mr O’Brien did not receive a response from the editor, he made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

In a submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman DublinLive.ie stated that the Code of Practice had not been breached as the article made clear that the statement in the article that the named man had attended the party was based on sources.

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

I am upholding this part of the complaint. The headline on the article stated as fact that a top member of a gang had been spotted in Dublin. This was only qualified in the body of the article as something based on unidentified sources. A casual reader of the article would have accepted as fact the man’s attendance at a party in Dublin as the references to sources only appeared after the man’s attendance was stated as fact. Principle 2.2 states

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

This requirement was not met in the headline to the article and in the first paragraph which stated as fact  that the man had returned to Ireland. The editor in his submission said that this claim was attributed to sources, but this was not made clear until later in the article. For this reason, I find that Principle 2 was breached.

 Principle 1

The complainant said that the article had breached Principle 1 in reporting that the man was in Ireland and that he had used a false passport.  The editor in his submission said that the claim that the man was in Ireland and had travelled on a false passport was attributed to sources. 

I have insufficient evidence to make a decision on this part of the complaint.

Principle 3

Principle 3.1 states

3.1 The press shall strive at all times for fair procedures and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information.

No evidence has been presented to me that this requirement was breached in the article published on 26 June.

Principle 4

Mr O’Brien claimed that Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) had been breached as the reporter did not carry out checks to determine if the source for information published in the article had been truthful and honest.

This Principle states

The press shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, and must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

No evidence has been presented to me that this requirement was breached in the article published on 26 June.

31 August 2021