Fr. P Keenan and The Argus

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a complaint by Fr Padraig Keenan that an article in The Argus was in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The complainant maintained that the article headlined “News about Fr  Brennan not read at every service” in the newspaper on 31 October 2012 was in breach of the Code of Practice because, by failing to afford the complainant a right to comment on allegations it reported, it did not ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of the report; because it had allowed a partisan account of the events concerned to be presented as the primary source of the story; because it had relied on what it described as a secret recording of remarks made by the complainant during Mass; and because it had failed to take reasonable care in checking the facts before publication.

The newspaper responded that its reporter had listened to a recording of what happened at the Mass which had been made by a third party and that statements complained of in the article were not presented as fact, but were clearly attributed, in quotation marks,  to another party.   It said that it had not contacted the complainant because he had made it very clear in the past that he did not want to comment to the newspaper, and they felt that it would therefore have been inappropriate to contact him again about this matter.  They said that accordingly, they had made contact with the diocesan office and had quoted a statement from that office in the article.   In response to Fr Keenan’s complaint, the newspaper offered to publish a statement from him, which he declined.

In these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence that the article breached Principle 1 or 2 of the Code of Practice, and these complaints are therefore not upheld.

There was also insufficient evidence that misrepresentation or subterfuge was used in obtaining the information that was published, and for this reason the complaint under Principle 3 is not upheld.

As the complainant had made it clear to the newspaper on a previous occasion that he did not want to comment in response to queries, the newspaper’s decision to go, instead, to the diocesan offices for a comment fulfilled, in the circumstances, the requirement of Principle 4 to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication, and for this reason the complaint under this Principle is not upheld.

Fr Keenan appealed to the Press Council of Ireland against the decision of the Press Ombudsman.