Mr Gerry Adams TD and the Irish Independent

The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Mr Gerry Adams TD under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.   

In a report on a Sinn Féin fund-raising event in New York the Irish Independent (9 March 2015) stated that Gerry Adams TD had “openly joked about holding the editor of the Irish Independent at gunpoint”.  Solicitors representing Mr Adams complained to the newspaper that the remark was reported out of context and had actually referred to the actions of Michael Collins in 1916. The solicitors included the script of Mr Adams’ speech in which he said “Mick Collins response to the Independent’s criticism of the fight for freedom was to dispatch volunteers to the Independent’s offices. They held the editor at gunpoint and then dismantled and destroyed the entire printing machinery!  Now I’m obviously not advocating that.”

When they received no response to their complaint it was submitted to the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

The editor of the newspaper then responded to the complaint and said that the article was “a fair and accurate account of Mr Adams’ speech” and that it was “viewed by some as a veiled threat”.

Mr Adams’ solicitors rejected this defence of the article and repeated that the report “distorted Mr Adams’ remarks and (had) taken them entirely out of context”.   

As it was not possible to resolve the complaint through conciliation it went to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

I am upholding this complaint on the grounds that the report breached Principle 1 of the Code.  The relevant section of this Principle is 1.1. This states

In reporting news and information, newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy.

In this instance readers of the article can reasonably be expected to assume that Mr Adams’ remarks as reported referred to the current editor of the Irish Independent and not to an event a century ago.  In order to avoid breaching Principle 1.1 the report should have made it clear that Mr Adams was referring to 1916.

Other parts of the complaint are not upheld.

I am not upholding this complaint under Principle 3. The relevant section of this Principle is 3.1.  This states

Newspapers and magazines shall strive at all times for fairness and honesty in the procurement and publishing of news and information.

The complainant has produced no evidence of unfairness or dishonesty in the manner in which the report was procured and published. Mr Adams’ solicitors claimed that their client had been subjected to a “concerted campaign … over many months”.  The Press Ombudsman only considers complaints about specific individual articles and not a series of articles over many months.   

I am not upholding the complaint under Principle 4.  This states

Everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name. Newspapers and magazines shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious representation or unfounded accusations, and must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

I have found no evidence to suggest that the article was based on malicious representations or unfounded accusations.

7 May 2015 

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

Click here to read the decision of the Press Council of Ireland.