Harney and the Irish Daily Mail

Complaint

A complaint was made on behalf of Ms Mary Harney TD, Minister for Health, about a headline on a front page article published in the Irish Daily Mail on 16 June 2009. The headline, referring to an article on a subsequent page, read: “Harney lied to justify cuts at Crumlin”. The Minister complained that this headline breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals.

The newspaper responded that all headlines attempt to sum up the contents of an article in a small number of short words, and that where the points made are complex ones, the reader would inevitably have to read the full article in order to fully understand those complexities. The newspaper offered the Minister a right of reply, either in the form of a Letter to the Editor or an article, with an assurance that it would afford her the same latitude as was given to Professor Crown, the author of the article referred to in the headline. The Minister found the newspaper’s offer unacceptable.

Decision

The headline, which was in quotation marks, and the article on the same page, related to a comment column inside the newspaper written by Professor John Crown in which he took issue with remarks the Minister had made about Crumlin Children’s Hospital. It is important to emphasise in this context, however, that the remit of the Press Ombudsman is not to adjudicate on the merits of the arguments in this major political controversy, but to make a decision about whether the headline complained of was in breach of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper stated that its headline was a fair and accurate summation of the key points made by Professor Crown. The unmistakeable import of the headline, however, underlined by its use of quotation marks, was that the author of the article had accused the Minister of lying. The article contained no such accusation. Additionally, in a subsequent article, and in a submission on behalf of the newspaper, the author of the article, while maintaining his personal belief that the Minister had misled the Dáil, stated that he “did not accuse her of lying.”

In the light of the explicit denial by the author that he had accused the Minister of lying to the Dail or of being a liar, the opinion of the Press Ombudsman is that the headline about his article was significantly misleading and inaccurate, that it should have been corrected by the newspaper, and that the offer of a right of reply was wholly inadequate.

The complaint under Principle 1 is therefore upheld.

There is insufficient evidence, particularly in the context of a highly-charged political debate with arguments on both sides, that the headline was in breach of the other Principles cited. The complaints under these Principles are therefore not upheld.

12 August 2009

The Newspaper appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.