Mr Manav Lok and thejournal.ie
On 28 November thejournal.ie published a report under the heading “Thousands of animals slaughtered in honour of Hindu Goddess”. The report described the ritual slaughter of thousands of animals which had taken place in Nepal. The report was accompanied by four photographs, three of which depicted the carcasses of slaughtered animals. The account was prefaced by a warning “Graphic Content”. The source of the report, which was credited, was a highly reputable international news agency.
The second paragraph of the report stated “Devotees turned the village of Bariyapur and its surrounding fields near the Indian border into the world’s largest abattoir for the two day festival with animals ranging from bulls to rats sacrificed”.
Mr Manav Lok contacted the Press Ombudsman’s Office to say that Hindus were peaceful people and that the slaughter depicted in the report represented “the beliefs of a small community in some region in Nepal” and wasn’t in any way representative of Hinduism in general. He asked that the article be corrected. The Press Ombudsman’s Office followed standard procedures when complainants contact its office in the first instance and asked the complainant to contact directly thejournal.ie.
On 29 November Mr Lok contacted thejournal.ie. He asked thejournal.ie to “bring down this article or clarify that this (the article) is not in line with religious beliefs with other Hindu communities in India”. Thejournal.ie replied to Mr Lok on 1 December and defended its publication of the article by stating that there was no implication that the ritual slaughter of the animals “reflected the beliefs and practices (of) all Hindus”. Thejournal.ie continued its response to Mr Lok by stating “However, given your concerns, I am happy to make it clear in the piece that this is not representative of all Hindus, as you request, I have edited the article now to include that in the introduction”. The article as edited now read “Devotees of one specific Hindu community turned the village of Bariyapur ... into the world’s largest abattoir for the two day festival...”
Mr Lok was not satisfied with this response to his complaint by thejournal.ie and asked the Press Ombudsman’s Office to investigate. He claimed that the article breached Principle 1 - Truth and Accuracy, Principle 2 - Distinguishing Fact and Comment and Principle 8 - Prejudice of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. He asked for an “Explicit Disclaimer”. In correspondence with the Press Ombudsman’s Office Mr Lok clarified that what he was seeking was a brief note at the top of the article (which remains available online and can be accessed by a word search) stating that “the presented subject matter of the article does not reflect the general belief of the Hindu religion nor that the publishing party shares their opinion to the facts presented in the content of the article”. Thejournal.ie did not publish Mr Lok’s proposed “Disclaimer”. The editor of thejournal.ie stated that the report was “completely factual” and “unbiased” and that “the same report has been carried on news outlets throughout the world”.
As it was not possible to resolve the complaint by conciliation it was referred to the Press Ombudsman for consideration.
The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold Mr Lok’s complaint. No one is disputing that the slaughter of the animals took place, the only issue in dispute is whether or not the article implied that the slaughter reflected the values of the Hindu community in general. The Press Ombudsman does not take the view that there was an implication in the article that the practice reflected the values of Hindus in general. The article was factual, therefore there was no breach of Principle 1. Neither was there a breach of Principle 2. The article was factual, there was no comment in the article. Neither was there a breach of Principle 8. The Press Ombudsman could find nothing in the article that was “intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred”. It is clear that Mr Lok was offended by the article, but one person taking offence cannot be sufficient grounds to uphold a complaint of a breach of Principle 8. .
17 December 2014