OMB. 1916/2024 - A Person and the Irish Daily Mirror and www.irishmirror.ie
The complainant, through their solicitors, asserts that an article published in the Irish Daily Mirror and on www.irishmirror.ie in September 2023 breached Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice.
The article provided the lead headline on the front page of the Irish Daily Mirror. Under the strap “Pronouns Shocker”, the headline read “Schoolkids, 8, told to call teacher THEY”. A subheading read “Parents hit out at “confusing” gender-neutral order to class”. The report stated that third class pupils at a primary school run by a named educational charity were told to refer to their teacher as “they”, that parents had not been consulted, and that “it is believed to be the first time a school in Ireland has moved to accommodate a teacher’s gender identity within the classroom”.
The complainant’s solicitors alleged that:
Principle 2.2 was breached because the article quoted an unnamed guardian and the solicitors had “significant concerns”, given the matters raised under Principle 2.3, as to whether such an objection was actually made. Despite including a quote from a single anonymous ‘guardian’ the front page of the printed edition included a sub-headline referring to ‘Parents'.
Principle 2.3. was breached because the writer of the article is the parent of a child who was then in the complainant’s classroom and therefore had an interest which was not disclosed to readers. Their client and the school were not approached for comment by the writer of the article, but by a different journalist.
Principle 3.1 was breached because the use of the second journalist was an “unfair and/or dishonest” means of trying to get information, and “disguised the true agenda” behind the article. The interest of the writer was not disclosed. The article took an unmistakable editorial view of the issue apparent in the headline on the newspaper. The solicitors attached other articles on related issues by the reporter who wrote the piece.
Principle 3.2 was breached because the use of the second journalist represented subterfuge and prevented their client and the school from raising an objection regarding conflict of interest in advance of publication.
Principle 4 was breached because the publication had not taken reasonable care to authenticate the reported objection to the use of gender-neutral pronouns by an unnamed guardian and despite quoting from a single anonymous ‘guardian’ the front page of the printed edition included a sub-headline referring to ‘Parents’.
Principle 5.1 was breached because while the article did not reveal their client’s identity “it must have been reasonably anticipated that the publication could lead to public identification” and that this had happened within 36 hours of the online publication.
Principle 8 was breached because the article was a “highly critical piece that singled out an individual on the basis of their gender identity” and that it “could only have been expected” to lead to public expressions of hatred against their client and other transgender/non-binary persons. They said there were reasons for concern that this was intentional.
The solicitors said the impact of the publication on their client “far outweighed any legitimate public interest in the subject matter”. They said the teacher had been subject to hateful commentary on social media and had left classroom teaching.
The solicitors called on the publication to remove the article from its website and delete social media links to it, to issue an apology to their client, and to confirm the steps it was taking to prevent further similar breaches.
The Irish Daily Mirror and www.irishmirror.ie noted that these are separate publications and consequently the particulars of a complaint in respect of one may differ in respect of the other. They responded to the complaint as follows:
Principle 2.2 was not breached because the views attributed to the unnamed guardian are presented as comment and not as fact. The publication asserted its right to respect the source’s wish not to be named and although only one person was quoted, other parents had also given their views to the publication.
Principle 2.3 was not breached because the publisher was aware in advance of publication that the reporter’s child was in the teacher’s class and was satisfied there was no conflict of interest. To have revealed the information would have facilitated identification of the school and the teacher.
Principle 3.1 was not breached because the factual information in the report was already known to the parents and teachers at the school and was not in dispute. This was a news report, all views presented were appropriately attributed, the report was neutral on the question of the school’s decision, and the complainant had provided no evidence of an agenda.
Principle 3.2 was not breached because the reporter who contacted the school identified herself, her purpose and her publication. The story was published in the public interest and the Code states that determining what is newsworthy is a matter for the discretion of editors.
Principle 4 was not breached because the unnamed guardian made a comment that comprised their opinion, there was no misrepresentation, no unfounded accusation, and no facts to check.
Principle 5.1 was not breached because the teacher was anonymised, as was the school. The information was not private as the complainant had requested that others use their gender-neutral pronouns and the school directed pupils to do so. The possibility that a third party might breach the anonymity of an individual was unavoidable and “in a world of social media, it is impossible to guard against”. This could not be a basis for non-publication of a news report.
Principle 8 was not breached because the article was “balanced and fair” and did not expose the complainant to hatred or attack. A range of views was given, no personal antipathy was expressed towards the complainant and there was no stirring up of hatred.
Decision
Principle 2.2: The publication has attributed comments to a source, who has a right to remain anonymous. There is no breach of Principle 2.2 of the Code.
Principle 2.3: The reporter was given the information on which the story is based in their personal capacity as a parent and the publication does not disclose this. However, journalists are not precluded from writing stories revealed to them in such circumstances, and this information was not confidential but had been shared with a significant number of people. There is no conflict of interest. The Press Ombudsman accepts that revealing that the journalist had a child in the teacher's class could have led to identification of the teacher and the school. There is no breach of Principle 2.3 of the Code.
Principle 3.1: Whatever views the author may have expressed elsewhere, this piece is a news report in which a range of views are presented. The Press Ombudsman finds that the front-page headline of the Irish Daily Mirror is not neutral but rather indicates an editorial view which is sceptical of the school’s decision. However, a slant does not amount to an agenda, and the publication is not precluded by the Code from taking an editorial position when presenting a news report. There is no breach of Principle 3.1 of the Code.
Principle 3.2: The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication’s use of a second reporter who identified herself and her publication does not represent subterfuge. There was no obligation to identify the source of the story or to state that it would be written by a journalist who was also the parent of a child in the class. While no parents made official complaints about the issue, the treatment of the story was at the discretion of the editor. The publication was entitled to invoke the public interest given that the story involves decisions about the education of young children and the complainant does not dispute the publication's assertion that parents were not consulted in advance. There is no breach of Principle 3.2 of the Code.
Principle 4: The publication was entitled to accede to a source's request not to be named and publish their opinion. This source expresses their view that children should not be corrected for using particular pronouns. They do not make accusations or misrepresent facts that need checking. There is no breach of Principle 4 of the Code.
Principle 5.1: The complainant had already made public within the school community that they wanted to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns. The school had asked the children to respect the teacher’s request. The potential that a person or persons within the school community might make the matter known to a wider circle was created by these decisions. The publication anonymised the teacher and did not disclose the name of the school.
The Press Ombudsman finds it reasonable to assume that the publication of the article and its front page headline treatment attracted the attention of some who swiftly made it their business to find out the identity of the complainant and their school, and to reveal these in social media posts, many of which were grossly offensive and aggressive.
However, while the publication amplified the story, the information had already been disclosed through the instruction to the children. It cannot be ruled out that a person or persons within the school community may also have alerted those hostile to the school’s decision. The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication is correct to assert that the behaviour of people on social media platforms is out of its control. There is no breach of Principle 5.1 of the Code.
Principle 8: The focus of the article is not the teacher’s request but the school’s decision to accede to it. The article provides a range of opinions as to whether this is an appropriate instruction for 8-year-old children. While the framing of the article suggests the publication has no great respect for the school's decision, the Press Ombudsman finds that this falls short of demonstrating an intention to stir up hatred against the complainant or against those whose gender is encompassed by they/them pronouns.
Principle 8 also requires publications to consider whether an article is likely to stir up such hatred. The complainant provided compelling evidence that certain people did react to the article by posting hateful, threatening, and grossly offensive comments on social media. These were directed at both the individual and the school.
Certain social media platforms routinely publish hateful material but as they are largely unregulated and not members of the Press Council, the Press Ombudsman has no power to hold them to account. The Press Ombudsman notes that regrettably these largely unregulated platforms cater to people who are liable to react with extreme intolerance to any story that involves non-binary or trans persons. To avoid stirring up their prejudices would mean ceasing to write about gender identity issues at all. The Press Ombudsman finds that this would unacceptably inhibit the freedom of the press and would be contrary to the public interest. She finds that neither the Irish Daily Mirror nor www.irishmirror.ie breached Principle 8 of the Code.
9 May 2024
The decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.