Mr Harry Browne and The Irish Times

The Press Ombudsman has decided that The Irish Times made an offer of  sufficient remedial action to resolve  a complaint by Mr Harry Browne that the newspaper’s  review of a book he wrote about Bono, published on 13 June 2013, contained erroneous statements (Principle 1), comment or conjecture reported as fact (Principle 2) and unfounded accusations (Principle 4).   A further complaint under Principle 4 was not upheld.

The publication disagreed with the complainant’s contentions,  with the exception of one error about the author, which it subsequently corrected, and argued that the review was a legitimate expression of the reviewer’s opinion of the book, and that reviews were opinions with which not everyone would agree. It accepted that the complainant was entitled to express a contrary view, and it invited him to submit a letter for publication, which it said would be published in the printed paper and the online edition, in which he could respond to the reviewer’s criticisms.  This offer was rejected by Mr Browne as a wholly inadequate remedy for what had been published.

Critical reviews - even those at the upper end of the scale, as this was - are not, of themselves, breaches of the Code of Practice. In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, however, the complainant’s assertions that this review contained breaches of  Principles 1 and 2  and part of Principle 4 of the Code of Practice were sufficiently well documented to require a remedy.  Principle 1 of the Code of Practice states that “when appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence.”

It has long been best practice, and in the spirit of the Code of Practice,  for newspapers to offer to publish a response from writers or other practitioners of the creative arts whose work has been subjected to critical review. This offer is generally a commitment to publish a response in the form of a letter.  This is particularly appropriate when it is difficult – as here -  to evaluate definitively, and on a strictly factual basis,  opinions and inferences which are primarily based on  emphasis and interpretation, and with which the subject of the review strongly disagrees.    

In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, the offer by the newspaper to publish a letter from the complainant in which he could respond to the reviewer’s criticisms constituted, on balance, a sufficient response to resolve the complaints made under Principles 1, 2, and that part of Principle 4  relating to the publication of unfounded accusations.   

There was insufficient evidence to uphold a further complaint, made under Principle 4, that the review contained  malicious representations.

 9 September 2013

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