Mr Gerry Adams and the Irish Daily Mail
The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Daily Mail took sufficient remedial action to resolve a complaint by Mr Gerry Adams TD that an article about him was in breach of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
Mr Adams complained through his solicitors that the article, published on 8 November 2013 and headlined “The Disappeared, Liam Adams...we are ready for the truth, but are Gerry and Sinn Fein?” contained a number of serious allegations which were totally incorrect, unfounded and extremely defamatory. He took issue in particular with statements in the article that he had effectively shielded a rapist in his own family, and had allowed his brother Liam to put himself forward as a Sinn Fein election candidate, which he said were untrue. He also complained that the newspaper’s decision not to contain his version of events in the article, or to contact him for a response to the allegations before publication, amounted to a failure to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.
The newspaper responded that it had received a letter from Mr Adams by email on 9 November – the day after the article was published - taking issue with the contents of the article. The letter was brought to the attention of the newspaper’s editor on his return to the office on 11 November. The newspaper then immediately offered to publish the contents of the letter as a right of reply, and Mr Adams accepted the offer. The letter was published on 12 November as an article by Mr Adams, on the same editorial page as the article under complaint, and with the same prominence as the original article.
Mr Adams’ solicitors contacted the newspaper on 9 January asking for a full and categoric retraction and apology, in terms acceptable to them, of the statements in the article complained of, on the grounds that, notwithstanding what they described as the belated publication of the right of reply article, serious damage had already been caused to Mr Adams’ reputation as a result of the original article, and because the statements in this article had already been extensively disseminated elsewhere in the interim and remained uncorrected.
The newspaper said that it did not accept that the article under complaint breached the Code of Practice and that any concerns that Mr Adams could have had were fully met by the publication of the prominent and comprehensive right of reply.
A newspaper which offers to publish, in full, promptly and with due prominence, a rejoinder to a critical article as a right of reply is entitled to assume, when the offer has been accepted, that the content of such a rejoinder will embody the view of the person criticised as to which issues should be addressed, and how. In the circumstances of this complaint, the speed with which the newspaper acted, and the prominence it gave to the complainant’s rejoinder, amounted, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, to the taking of sufficient remedial action on its part to remedy the complaint made under the Principles cited.
A further matter raised by Mr Adams’ solicitors was that his right of reply article had been totally undermined by an editorial addition which accompanied it. The Press Ombudsman did not consider that, in this particular case, the wording of the editorial addition complained of, while evidently unwelcome to the complainant, was significant enough to undermine the sufficiency of the newspaper’s response to the complaint generally.
The complainant also maintained under Principle 4 that the contents, and what he said was the vitriolic tone, of the article were evidence of malice, but there was no evidence, as is required to support a decision upholding a complaint under this part of Principle 4, that the newspaper had “knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations.”
7 March 2014