Mr Bev Cotton and the Irish Examiner

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by Mr Bev Cotton that an article in the Irish Examiner on 6 February 2012 was in breach of Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The article in question was one of a number of investigative articles and editorials which covered matters relating to County Cork VEC and in particular, Macroom Youthreach Centre.

The complainant maintained that references in this article to a letter sent by the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills to the Oireachtas Committee of Public Accounts about some of the matters raised in the articles were a breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice.

The newspaper stood over its publication of the article in question and offered Mr Cotton a right of reply to this and other articles about which he complained, which he turned down.

The article reported that the Secretary General’s letter related to a “damning internal audit”, although the letter itself did not contain the word “damning”. This was a comment reported as fact and therefore a breach of Principle 2.

The Press Ombudsman decided not to uphold a number of other complaints by Mr Cotton that this and the other articles and editorials published by the Irish Examiner in February 2012 in other respects breached Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 4 (Respect for Rights) and 5 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

The articles concerned included substantial references to and extracts from a document – variously described as a report, an inquiry, an audit, or a report audit - generated by the Vocational Services Support Unit (VSSU) of the County Cork VEC. It is referred to in this decision as the VSSU report.

Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy)

The complainant maintained that references to him in the VSSU report were unfounded and inaccurate and should therefore not have been published. However, a newspaper is not bound, under Principle 1, to verify any and every allegation reported about a complainant and attributed to third parties, as long as it fulfils the requirement of this Principle to strive at all times for truth and accuracy. In this context, it is noted that the correspondence submitted by the newspaper in response to the complaint detailed its substantial in-depth investigation and inquiry prior to the publication of the articles. The newspaper also offered the complainant, prior to publication, an opportunity to offer his observations on the allegations concerning him contained in the VSSU report.

There was nothing significantly inaccurate in the newspaper’s account of the origin, nature and contents of the VSSU report on which the newspaper’s articles were based. The newspaper’s investigation and inquiry prior to publication can also reasonably be regarded as fulfilling the requirements of Principle 1 to strive at all times for truth and accuracy. Its description of the VSSU report as an ‘audit’, although contested by the complainant, was - if an error - not significant enough to amount to a breach of the Code. In all of the circumstances, therefore, the complaint under Principle 1 is not upheld.

The decision not to uphold the complaint under Principle 1 is not a decision about the truth and accuracy of any of the allegations contained in the VSSU report and reported as such in the newspaper - many of which the complainant vigorously contested. The matters raised in the VSSU report are extremely complicated, involve many different actors and bodies not associated with this complaint, and verification of the allegations concerned is therefore not within the remit of the Press Ombudsman.

Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment)

Part of Mr Cotton’s complaint under Principle 2 has been dealt with above. Mr Cotton also complained that the publication of his name in the context of its report of the Secretary-General’s letter was a breach of Principle 2 because his name had not appeared in the letter concerned. However, the use of square brackets around his name in directly quoted parts of this letter indicated clearly that Mr Cotton’s name had not been included in the original.

The newspaper said that while Mr Cotton’s name was not contained in the letter from the Secretary-General, it was clear from the context that he was the individual referred to, and that his name was already in the public domain as the co-ordinator of the VEC’s Youthreach office in Macroom during the period to which the VSSU report referred. His identification in the context of the newspaper’s report of this letter was therefore not a breach of Principle 2.

While Mr Cotton also complained under Principle 2 that the paraphrase of the letter published by the newspaper mis-described the Secretary General as having “said” the words attributed to her, rather than having written them (as she did), the article elsewhere clarified that she had written to the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee, and the mis-description involved in this part of the paraphrased section of her letter was not significant enough to amount to a breach of the Code.

Principle 4 (Respect for Rights)

A complaint under Principle 4 was not upheld because the newspaper submitted evidence of a substantial process of investigation and inquiry prior to the publication of the articles, including an offer to the complainant to make his own observations on the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in the VSSU report. In the circumstances, and while the complainant was clearly within his rights in declining this offer, this, together with the newspaper’s investigations, amounted to taking reasonable care in checking facts before publication. There was no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations.

At the same time, the Code of Practice does not support the view that a publication can justify publishing material that might affect a person’s good name solely by pointing to the fact that it had offered the person concerned an opportunity to protect his good name by denying, or making observations on, matters it proposed to publish concerning him. This could create quite unacceptable risks for an individual whose good name might be at stake. The simultaneous or subsequent publication of a denial, therefore, may not, of itself, be sufficient justification under the Code for the publication of material or allegations that have been denied.

The relevance of such a justification relates not only to any such offer, but - as in the case of this complaint - to the evidential value or significance of the matters complained of, to issues of the public interest and of the freedom of the press, and to the nature and extent of any investigations the newspaper may have carried out, where such investigations were as thorough as could be expected in the circumstances, and even when - as also in this case - such investigations were ultimately inconclusive.

Principle 5

Finally, Mr Cotton complained under Principle 5 about the publication of his name by the newspaper, whereas the VSSU report had not named him. The newspaper said that while Mr Cotton’s name was not contained in the original report, it was clear from its contents that he was the individual referred to, as his name was already in the public domain as the co-ordinator of the VEC’s Youthreach office in Macroom during the period to which the VSSU report referred. The newspaper also said it named him because not to do so could have implicated a number of other people who, subsequent to Mr Cotton’s employment there, occupied this position. The publication of his name in this context, while obviously unwelcome to Mr Cotton, did not breach this Principle.

17 August 2012

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