McCamley and the Irish Sun

Complaint

The complainant claimed that the article contained statements about him that were rumours reported as fact, in breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals (Distinguishing Fact and Comment). The headlines of the article, referring to the complainant, read: “Man who left 100,000 workers at the bus stop – Face of strike boss”, and the first paragraph stated: “This is the leader of a wildcat bus strike that paralysed the capital and left more than 100,000 other workers STRANDED.” It further stated that he was a member of the militant Bus Workers’ Action Group backing the dispute.

The newspaper responded that its article was published in good faith and that its honest belief, based on its research, was that the complainant was very strongly linked to the militant unofficial action group of bus workers. It had subsequently offered him a right of reply.

Decision

A decision has to be made in the light of the Code of Practice about whether other material in the article, emphasized by the newspaper in its response to the complaint, is sufficient to justify a finding that these dramatic and prominent statements were being reported as rumours or conjecture rather than as fact.

This material included a statement in the second paragraph that the complainant was “reportedly” one of the instigators of the unofficial action. Also, a small proportion of the total space devoted to the article was allocated to a statement by the complainant, reprinted from another newspaper, in which he rejected other reports linking him to intimidation of workers and stoning of buses.

In the view of the Press Ombudsman, however, these elements of the article fell significantly short of what would be required to satisfactorily modify the unqualified statements in the headlines and the introduction, and that these statements were therefore rumours reported as fact. Although the newspaper’s research, together with the absence of a challenge to the rumours, may have strengthened its belief that they were true, Principle 2 of the Code of Practice does not support an interpretation that they can therefore be reported as fact. The complaint under Principle 2 is therefore upheld.

Mr McCamley also complained that the article was also in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy). He denied the allegations and provided a letter from his employer stating that, as the result of a preliminary investigation of the unofficial dispute and his replies to questions in the course of that investigation, no disciplinary action was being taken in relation to him. This inquiry had, he said, had cleared him of instigating the stoppage. The newspaper noted that, in the course of its own investigation, it had received information from a reliable confidential source, had made extensive enquiries, and had made numerous unsuccessful attempt to contact the complainant, including establishing communication with the political organization of which he was a member. This organization had promised, but had not supplied, a statement from him about the dispute. It also argued that as denials about membership of the militant bus workers’ action group had to be taken in the context of the fact that this group had no official membership, leadership or leader.

In all the circumstances outlined above, the Press Ombudsman is unable to make a determination about the truth or accuracy of the statements concerned

The complainant did not provide any evidence under Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, or that it did not take reasonable care in checking facts before publication. This complaint is therefore not upheld.

25 January 2010

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