Dr David Abrahamson and The Irish Times
The Irish Times published in its Arts and Books section on Saturday 13 September an article which reviewed a number of books on the topic of the Middle East and in particular Israeli and Palestinian relations. The heading on the review was “Fear and Loathing: Palestinians pay the price of history”. This was followed by a sub-heading “Israel still claims it has no choice but to continue the policies of ethnic cleansing, dispossession and extermination that started with its foundation”.
Dr David Abrahamson complained to the editor of The Irish Times. He claimed that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. He raised three issues in his complaint. The first of these was an interpretation of a 1967 United Nations resolution in the aftermath of the six day war between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The second issue Dr Abrahamson raised was what he described as “the veiled use of Holocaust terminology” in the author’s use of the term “death march” in describing what had happened in Ramallah. The third issue Dr Abrahamson raised was the sub-heading to the review. He argued that this sub-heading was an opinion rather than a fact. He stated that the most recent military intervention in Gaza by the Israeli defence forces had been in defence of its citizens who were under attack from Hamas rockets and was nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, dispossession or extermination.
The editor of The Irish Times defended the article stating that the interpretation of the UN resolution in the article equated with most interpretations of the meaning of the words found in the article (the resolution was in English and French and there are disagreements about whether or not the two versions are identical). He also defended the use of the expression “death march” stating that its usage was not confined to the treatment of Jewish people by the German Army during the Second World War and that the expression has been used in other conflicts in countries such as Armenia and Cambodia. He then went on to deal with the issue of the sub-heading on the article pointing out that the views expressed in it were the views of the author and were based on remarks made by the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayan who said in 1956 that there was no other choice open to Israel other than to use repressive force against the Palestinians. The editor said that readers expect in a book review to find the opinion of the reviewer and that there was no confusion between fact and comment in the article.
Dr Abrahamson replied to the editor and drew in a series of articles written about the Middle East by the reviewer published in recent months in The Irish Times to illustrate his arguments about the three issues he had raised in his complaint.
Further correspondence between the complainant and the editor failed to resolve issues and the Press Ombudsman’s Office accepted the complaint and began a process of conciliation. During this process the editor of The Irish Times offered as a conciliatory measure to consider publishing a letter from Dr Abrahamson or if this was not acceptable to him to publish a clarification to address what the complainant said was his greatest concern about the article – the sub-heading. Dr Abrahamson responded that as there was a great deal more background material that needed to be covered than could be adequately accommodated in a letter, he would be willing to write about it by way of an “op-ed” (opinion column). In regard to the offer of a clarification he stated that if there was an agreement on suitable wording the publication of an “apology/correction” would be acceptable. He asked that this be published on a Saturday, the same day of the week as the review.
The editor thanked Dr Abrahamson for his offer to write an editorial piece but declined this offer saying that the publication of a letter rather than an opinion column was offered as “it is the letters page where readers take issue with the contents of the newspaper”. After further exchange of correspondence the editor of The Irish Times offered to publish a clarification stating
In a review of books in the edition of September 13th, Lara Marlowe expressed the opinion that Israel “claims it has no choice but to continue the policies of ethnic cleansing, dispossession and extermination that started with its foundation”. The Israeli government has never made such claim.
While it was agreed between the parties that the clarification would be published on a Saturday, the newspaper published it on Thursday 7 January. Dr Abrahamson contacted the Press Ombudsman’s office on 8 January to say that he was not happy with its publication on a Thursday and that he wanted the clarification re-published on a Saturday. The editor of The Irish Times apologised to Dr Abrahamson for the publication of the clarification on a Thursday, rather than a Saturday, which he said had been inadvertent. However, he went on to say that as the clarification had been published prominently he did not feel it was necessary to re-publish it on a Saturday.
At this point Dr Abrahamson raised the issue of the publication of the clarification in the online edition of The Irish Times. As far as he could establish the online edition did not carry the clarification. He contrasted this with other clarifications which had been published in the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Irish Times responded by saying that the clarification was available on its online edition and could be found at the end of the review. The newspaper went on to state “This is the online correction method unless there has been specific agreement for an alternative. It is more acceptable to online readers because anyone reading the book review will immediately see the correction”.
Dr Abrahamson was not satisfied with this response. He continued to express his dissatisfaction at the publication of the print version of the correction on a Thursday rather than a Saturday and at the means by which the online clarification was published. He pointed out that a Google search did not easily result in a link to the clarification. He stated that “since everyone has a right to be advised of the (reviewer’s) error I believe the only way this matter can be satisfactorily resolved is by republishing the correction again (at least online) on a Saturday under Corrections & Clarifications on the Opinion & Analysis page”.
At this point the complaint went to the Press Ombudsman for consideration.
This has been a long and detailed complaint where a complainant with strongly held views was fundamentally dissatisfied with a reviewer’s opinions about conflicts in the Middle East. Few issues generate as much debate and controversy as the Middle East. Newspaper editors know that there are strongly held views on both sides and that intensive lobbying can be expected when articles critical of one side or the other are published. Diverging interpretations of the meaning and significance of events over a period of seventy years cannot be resolved by the Press Ombudsman’s Office. The complaint was made that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) had been breached. In some instances it is impossible to separate fact and opinion as different viewpoints argue that one side’s facts are actually opinions and vice versa. So going back to the original complaint did the reviewer fail to strive to achieve truth and accuracy in her review of seven books on the Middle East? Were her references to UN resolution 242 and to the “death marches” in Ramallah accurate? Under Principle 2 “comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact”. Was there evidence of any failure in this regard in the review? One of the options available to the Press Ombudsman is to find that there is insufficient evidence available to him to make a decision on a complaint. It seems to me that this is the only option I can take in regard to these matters.
In regard to the third issue, the sub-heading to the article, the editor of The Irish Times offered to clarify that the sub-heading was in effect the opinion of the reviewer and did not reflect the Israeli government position. This should have been sufficient action to resolve this part of the complaint. However the offer was made to publish the clarification on a Saturday, but it was published in error on a Thursday. The Press Council of Ireland has guidelines on the publication of its decisions, but it does not provide guidelines in regard to the publication of clarifications, corrections or apologies. Whilst it is regrettable that The Irish Times failed to publish its clarification on the day of the week that it said it would publish it I accept that this was a genuine mistake and that the re-publication on the agreed day of the week was not necessary. Therefore I conclude that sufficient remedial action was taken by the editor to resolve this part of Dr Abrahamson’s complaint.
Finally, in regard to the placing of the clarification on the online version of The Irish Times I believe that any reader wishing to access the review is better served by having the clarification at the end of the review rather than elsewhere on the website. It is the nature of archival use of online newspapers that the most relevant place to publish a clarification is with the article as this alerts those accessing the article to the clarification.
11 February 2015
The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland.