Mr Mark Connolly and Others and the Irish Examiner

The Press Ombudsman has decided that the Irish Examiner took sufficient action to remedy a complaint under Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines about an article on autism it published on 3 February 2012.

He has also decided that there was insufficient evidence to uphold two complaints about the article under a number of other Principles, and not to uphold two further complaints.

The complainants, Mr Mark Connolly and others, complained under Principle 8 of the Code that the article, which cast considerable doubts on much medical opinion about autism, was likely to cause grave offence to people with autism/ASD and their parents. The Principle, as cited by the complainant, states that newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence against an individual or group on the basis of – among other things – illness. The editor responded that he had publicly apologised for the hurt and upset caused by the publication of the article, and that the article did not represent his newspaper’s views. He provided evidence that that the newspaper had subsequently published considerable material reflecting strong criticism of both of the content of the article and of the newspaper’s decision to publish it in the first place. This response was rejected as inadequate by the complainants.

The freedom of the press, as set out in the Code of Practice, includes the freedom to publish comment articles that some readers – possibly even a majority of the readers of any publication – may believe are biased, prejudiced or plain wrong. However, neither newspapers nor their columnists are infallible, and do not pretend to be. In matters of current debate they are not required to be bland or impartial, and even have a right to be wrong, within the constraints of the Code. As long as they are prepared to afford reasonable space to opposing claims and ideas, they fulfil the objectives of a free press as much as they acknowledge its responsibilities.

The reaction to this particular article demonstrates that the opinions it expressed were hotly and reasonably contested, and were certainly open to many of the criticisms expressed.

The fact that an article gives offence – even widespread offence – is not of itself evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice. In this case, however, the offence was not only widespread but grave, could have been interpreted as gratuitously provocative, and might have been avoided or at least minimized if the topic had been presented in a different manner (for example by the simultaneous presentation of an opposing point of view). However, the offence caused did not appear intentional, and the way in which the newspaper responded to the legitimate criticisms and opposing views expressed by its readers was, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, sufficient remedial action in the circumstances to resolve the complaint under this Principle.

The Code of Practice, on the other hand, does not require the Press Ombudsman to determine the rights and wrongs of complex controversies, especially in relation to scientific matters where facts are in dispute and which are – as this one plainly is – the subject of fiercely opinionated debate. For this reason he is unable to make any decision on the complaint under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) that the article contained misleading or distorted statements about the state of medical science on autism/ASD, or on the complaint under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) that the article contained comment reported as fact.

Another complaint under Principle 2 that the article may have been inappropriately influenced by undisclosed interests was, in the absence of sufficient evidence, not upheld. A complaint under Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) that the newspaper had not taken reasonable care in checking facts before publication was not upheld because, in the context of that Principle as a whole, it is clear that, whatever the article’s deficiencies, it did not constitute an attack on anyone’s good name.

17 May 2012

The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.