The ESB and the Irish Independent

The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint by the ESB that an article in the Irish Independent of 21 October 2010 was in breach of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines because it reported, as a fact, that a person had taken his own life because of his concern about an unpaid electricity bill. A second complaint about the same article was not upheld, and it was not possible to make a decision on a third complaint about it. He did not uphold complaints about a second article, published on 22 October.

The headline of the article stated that the deceased man “came for a better life – but hanged himself over an ESB bill”. The newspaper said that its reporter had interviewed the deceased’s widow, with the aid of an interpreter, for hours on the day she wrote the story, and that the ESB bill had been a crucial point on which it regarded its story to have been scrupulously fair and even-handed. The newspaper accepted that, as well as the ESB bill, there was a “litany of other factors” which led to the tragedy.

As the deceased was under financial pressure for a number of different reasons, and as his death was sudden, comments or conjectures about the reason or reasons for his death can legitimately be reported as such. The article’s headline, however, prominently reported as fact, without qualification, that one factor alone - an outstanding ESB bill - was the reason for his death. While the views and opinions of the deceased’s family and friends about this sad event were accurately reported, these were insufficient to justify the unqualified reporting in the headline, as fact, of this particular conjecture or comment. The complaint under Principle 2 is therefore upheld.

As it is impossible to establish the accuracy or otherwise of the statement in the headline, it is not possible to make a decision on whether or not the headline breached Principle 1 of the Code.

There was no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, as would be required to support a breach of Principle 4, and, as the newspaper did take reasonable care in checking facts before publication by contacting the ESB in advance, this part of the complaint is not upheld.

Further complaints made by the ESB under Principles 1, 2 and 3 about an article published on 22 October were not upheld, as no evidence was submitted to support the complaint that this article breached these Principles of the Code.

24 February 2011

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