McCamley and the Evening Herald

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold two complaints by Mr. John McCamley, a bus driver and trade unionist, about articles published in the Evening Herald on 28 April 2009 concerning an unofficial dispute in Dublin Bus, and not to uphold four other complaints about the same articles.

Mr. McCamley complained that the article in the Evening Herald of 28 April 2009 headlined: “FAMILY DIVIDED: Socialist Party firebrand’s father is on Dublin Bus’s board of directors” was inaccurate and in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals. He said his father fully supported his actions throughout the strike, and that the newspaper had not contacted either him or his father about this matter before publishing the article.

The newspaper did not respond specifically to the complainant’s assertions that the information about him and his father had been inaccurate. It said that it stood over its story about the complainant’s purported role in the strike, which it stated had been based on a confidential source. It offered to publish the results of a Dublin Bus investigation, and to publish a statement by Mr McCamley that he was not an organizer of the unofficial strike at the depot and had not organized any unofficial pickets. The offer was turned down by Mr McCamley, who sought a full retraction and unreserved apology.

A family division in the circumstances outlined would have been a significant and newsworthy matter. Since the complainant stated that his father supported his actions throughout the strike, and as the newspaper did not provide any evidence either in the article or in subsequent correspondence that the complainant’s family were “divided” on the issue, this aspect of the complaint under Principle 1 is upheld.

He also complained that a front page article in the same issue of the newspaper was in breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), in that its statements about his role in the unofficial dispute were unconfirmed reports presented as fact. He contradicted the statements in the article, and presented in support of his complaint a statement from Dublin Bus that no disciplinary proceedings were to be taken against him following a preliminary internal investigation into the dispute.

This article was the main news report in the newspaper on the day in question, and stated, without qualification or attribution, that the complainant supported the unofficial dispute and was one of the “key people behind” the group organizing it. It amplified these statements by featuring Mr McCamley’s photograph prominently on the front page in association with the headlines “BUS STRIKE TURNS UGLY Buses stoned, staff intimidated, six depots hit”, and a caption that described him as supporting the strike.

Principle 2 of the Code of Practice states that “comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact.” As the material published about the complainant’s purported key role in the strike was reported as fact, without any corroboration or attribution, and without any indication that it was comment, conjecture, rumour, or an unconfirmed report, this part of the complaint is upheld under Principle 2.1.

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a number of other complaints about the articles concerned.

Mr McCamley complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) in that the reference to him as one of the “key people behind” the unofficial dispute was inaccurate, that the newspaper had made only a token effort to get his views before publication, and that the newspaper had ignored two corrective press statements sent to it by his political party on the day of publication of the article under complaint. As the Press Ombudsman’s investigative role is confined to assessing evidence voluntarily made available by both parties, there is insufficient evidence available to him in this case to enable him to make a decision on the accuracy or otherwise of the statements under complaint. The Press Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, in the light of all the circumstances, is that the newspaper’s offer was a sufficient response on its part to the complaint under Principle 1. The publication of the full report of the Dublin Bus inquiry, however, would be conditional on the prior agreement both of the complainant and of Dublin Bus.

He complained under Principle 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) that the ‘source’ material for the article emanated from someone activated by malice. As no evidence was submitted to support this contention, this part of the complaint is not upheld.

He complained under Principle 3.2 (Fairness and Honesty) about the publication of his photograph, which he said was taken from his Bebo website. As there was no evidence that the photograph was obtained by misrepresentation or subterfuge, as would be required for a breach of Principle 3.2, this part of the complaint is not upheld.

He also complained about the articles under Principle 4 (Respect for Rights). However, as he did not provide any evidence to support his complaint under Principle 4, and as the Press Ombudsman could find no evidence that Principle 4 had been breached, this part of the complaint is not upheld. 

16 February 2010

Mr McCamley appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.