Mr Dermot Desmond and The Sunday Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the action of  The Sunday Times in publishing a letter from  Mr Dermot Desmond was insufficient to remedy a breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy)  of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines  in respect of  a specific and significant inaccuracy  in an  article published  on 16 December 2012, but not to uphold his complaint about other aspects of this article, or about the editing of his letter in other respects,  under Principles 1, 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment)  and 3 (Fairness and Honesty)  of the Code of Practice.

The Press Ombudsman also decided that the publication had taken sufficient action  to resolve a complaint  about a subsequent article published on 23 December, and that another inaccuracy complained of in relation to that article was not significant enough to warrant a decision that it was a breach of the Code.

In a letter submitted for publication   and published in an edited form on 23 December, Mr Desmond complained - among other things – that the article on December 16 had purported to describe his presence at a function the previous week, and stated that he was “in town” to accept an award, whereas he had not only been out of the country on the day in question, but the function had not even taken place. The newspaper told the Office of the Press Ombudsman  that it had obtained the date of the function from the website of the function’s organisers.

While  that  part of the complainant’s letter putting the record straight about the meeting was published as part of the edited version of his letter, the specific inaccuracy referred to above was, in the context of the article in question, an error of such significance that the newspaper, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Code of Practice, which requires significant inaccuracies to be corrected promptly and with due prominence, should have taken the responsibility of correcting it on its own authority.  

A number of other complaints about the  article published on 16 December, and about the editing, in other respects, of the letter submitted by the complainant and published by the newspaper, were not upheld. 

Mr Desmond complained that the editing of the letter that was published, which he had asked should be published in full, resulted in a distorted report and amounted to an undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of the newspaper.    However, a newspaper’s policy of editing letters submitted for publication, for  space, clarity or legal reasons, is a legitimate exercise of editorial discretion, and does not of itself amount to a breach of the Code of Practice.   This policy is clearly stated on the “letters to the editor” page of the newspaper.    

The evidence submitted by the complainant was insufficient to support his view that the editing of his letter, in respect of matters unrelated to the factual error identified above, amounted to a breach of the Code of Practice. This element of the complaint is therefore not upheld.

In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, comments on the International Financial Services Centre contained in the article on December 16 , which the complainant also maintained were breaches of the Code of Practice, were adequately covered by  that part of the Preamble to the Code protecting a publication’s right to comment.  

The Press Ombudsman decided that the newspaper’s action in correcting, on its own authority, an inaccuracy in the article published on 23 December referring to the complainant and other individuals in connection with the same function - which had, by then, taken place -  had been sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve this part of the complaint.

While the newspaper decided not to publish a correction in relation to another alleged inaccuracy in the same article about the person who introduced Mr Desmond at the function, this was not, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, an inaccuracy of such significance as to warrant a decision that it was a breach of the Code of Practice.

While Mr Desmond complained that the articles published on l6 and 23 December were misleading because, in his opinion, they gave the reader the distinct impression that the reporters were present at certain events, although they had not been,  neither article stated that a reporter  had been present.    While for journalists to write at second-hand about events they have not attended, and have not claimed to have attended, is not without risk,  it is not, of itself, or in this case, a breach  of the Code of Practice.

 

 17 April 2013