Ombudsman providing outlet for criticisms of press

Complaints to the Office of the Press Ombudsman are increasingly being resolved by conciliation with newspaper editors, according to the Annual Report of the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman, which was launched in Dublin. The Press Ombudsman, Professor John Horgan welcomed this trend as a sign that “the system has bedded down well, and in particular that the member publications are continually improving their own internal systems of complaint-handling.”

According to the Annual Report, as in previous years, Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, relating to Truth and Accuracy, was most frequently cited in complaints in 2012, accounting for 35% of all complaints, followed by Prejudice (26%), Fairness and Honesty (13%), Distinguishing Fact and Comment (10%) and Respect for Rights (8%). The Press Ombudsman decided on a total of 40 complaints in 2012, upholding 43% of them. In 23% of cases, sufficient remedial action was deemed to have been offered or taken by the publication. There was a substantial rise in the number of complaints resolved by conciliation, typically on foot of the Office’s Case Officer contacting the editor. One third of all cases processed were concluded in this manner.

The 575 complaints received, according to Professor Horgan, “indicate that the Office provides members of the public with an important outlet for their criticisms of the press, even if on reflection, many decide not to pursue the matter further.”

Chairman Dáithí O Ceallaigh pointed out that since its establishment five years ago the Office has received over 2,000 complaints.

“In all cases where complaints were upheld, publications have published our decisions – some of them of substantial import – upholding the reputation of individuals and correcting serious errors.” He emphasised that the reputation which the Offices have garnered over that period is “in no small part due to the principles which underpin our structures. One of these is the importance of a free and vigilant press as an essential component of any democratic society. The other is that the freedom of the press must be exercised – if it is to secure acceptance and credibility with the press itself and with the wider public - within an independent system of accountability and redress.”

Mr O Ceallaigh said the attention paid in the Leveson enquiry in the UK to ‘the Irish model’, as it was referred to, was “significantly and encouragingly” partly reflected in Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.  Referring to press standards, he added that “digital journalism, whether on the websites of the established print media or on digital-only websites, should fundamentally be judged by the same criteria that have been elaborated, on the basis of hard-won experience, by the print media over many decades.”

The Press Council of Ireland has responded to an EU initiative in relation to media accountability and regulation within the Union. While applauding the interest it signals in press freedom and pluralism, the Council raises concerns about whether creating new Europe-wide institutions for accountability and professional practice in journalism is the best way to achieve these objectives. “These issues are, fundamentally, as much cultural as they are legal and political, and we should take care lest a response to the problems of any one state or of a small number of states generate an inappropriate template for the Union as a whole,” said Mr O Ceallaigh.

Guest of Honour at the launch was Mr Conor Brady, former member of the Garda Ombudsman Commission and former editor of The Irish Times.