Mr Sean Fitzgerald and the Sunday World

On 14 September 2014 the Sunday World published a report under the headline “Smokey and the bandit”.  Mr Sean Fitzgerald complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights)   of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines. Mr Fitzgerald based his complaint on a reference to him in the report that he had called a person named in the article asking for cash. Mr Fitzgerald stated in his complaint that this was completely untrue. He claimed that the reference to him was from a third party and that it was not accurate, and this was therefore a breach of Principle 1.  Mr Fitzgerald further claimed that Principle 2 had been breached because the reporter had been “inappropriately influenced by someone who is making false claims”.  He went on to claim that Principle 3 had been breached because the reporter “did not confirm with the person making the false claim” whether it was his voice or not on the call that made the request for money.  He claimed that Principle 4 had been breached as the article was “based on malicious and unfounded accusations by a third party” and the facts had not been checked before publication.

The editor of the newspaper responded that the reference in the report to Mr Fitzgerald was a “direct quote” from a named person and that all the reporter’s information came from “reputable and impeccable sources”.

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

The Press Ombudsman can only base any decision on evidence that is presented to him by the complainant and the editor.  In this instance an allegation was published which was categorically denied.  The newspaper claimed the allegation was from a reputable source.  The Press Ombudsman has no way of confirming that source.  But equally he has no way of substantiating the complainant’s claim that contradicts the allegation.  One of the options available to the Press Ombudsman is to decide that

… there is insufficient evidence available to him to make a decision on the complaint.

As I cannot verify the accuracy or otherwise of the allegation, and it is only an allegation, made by a third party, this is the only course of action I can take in this complaint.

13 February 2015

The complainant 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