Gript.ie appealed a decision of the Press Ombudsman made on a complaint submitted by Dublin City University about two articles Gript.ie had published in October 2024.
Gript.ie submitted its appeal on the grounds that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
At its meeting on 18 June 2025 the Press Council considered the appeal on the grounds relied upon and on the information, documentation and submissions made by both parties to the appeal.
Decision
The Press Council decided that the Gript.ie did not show that the Press Ombudsman had erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code in respect of the publication’s obligation to show that it had striven for truth and accuracy.
The Press Council decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 3 of the Code in as much as ultimate responsibility for publication of material obtained by subterfuge rests with the publication, and that publication of the information was not justified in the public interest.
The Press Council decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 5 of the Code in regard to her finding on a breach of privacy, and that publication of the information was not justified in the public interest.
Decision of the Press Ombudsman, May 1st 2025
The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint from Dublin City University (DCU) that Gript.ie breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty) and Principle 5 (Privacy) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
The complaint concerns two articles published on 4 and 24 October 2024 about a postgraduate diploma course run by the university for secondary school teachers. The course on Social, Personal and Health Education/Relationships and Sexuality Education (SPHE/RSE) is funded by the Department of Education to deliver training in line with the national curriculum.
The articles are based on assertions to Gript.ie by a named teacher who took part in the course and on material including an audio recording and photographs of material used on the course. The publication asserted that it also reviewed documents and other materials and relied on statements from other unnamed course participants.
The articles purported to reveal that the course presented teachers with exercises that were for replication in school classrooms and that these used extremely sexually explicit language and visual materials showing sexual organs and sexual activity. Sources were quoted questioning the use of such material in school classrooms.
The article published on 24 October included an audio clip from a conversation recorded during a coffee break in the course. The publication presented this in support of claims it cited that course material was replicated in the classroom.
On Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, the complainants stated that the publication had conflated what was taught to teachers on the course “so that they have a broader knowledge of the SPHE/RSE area” and what is taught to secondary school students in accordance with the national curriculum.
They said that it was made explicitly clear to those taking the course that exercises and resources that were not age appropriate were not to be used in school classrooms. They said that claims to the contrary were “categorically untrue”, that the articles were misleading and created a distorted picture and that assertions had been made that were unsupported by fact. They said neither the audio nor a WhatsApp message that were published supported the claims made about their import.
The complainants provided a copy of a public statement from the university which states that the course is to help teachers with the new SPHE/RSE curriculum dealing with topics like “mental health and wellbeing, consent, sexuality, respect and relationships … in a sensitive and age-appropriate manner”.
On Principle 3 of the Code of Practice, the complainants said that an audio clip which was part of the 24 October article had been obtained through subterfuge and without the knowledge or permission of those recorded. They said there was no public interest justification for this.
On Principle 5 of the Code of Practice, the complainants said that private individuals in a private place had been recorded through subterfuge and without their knowledge or permission. They said there was no public interest justification.
The complainants sought for the articles and the audio to be taken down, and for an apology to be published.
On Principle 1 of the Code, the publication stated that the complainants had refused to engage with it on issues arising from the complaint. It stated that it had carried out extensive research and consulted “multiple course participants” when preparing the articles.
The publication stated that teachers told it that it was “simply absurd to expect anyone to believe that the multiple interactive exercises the teachers were asked to undertake in the course were not examples of classroom exercises”. It claimed the audio clip revealed course participants discussing how graphic sexual activities were brought up with pupils in a classroom, and that the clip included a course teacher commending the schoolteacher. It said its sources were present when an “intimacy lesson” was conducted during the course and told the publication this was clearly “a classroom exercise”.
On Principle 3 of the Code, the publication said the use of subterfuge was justified by a legitimate public interest.
On Principle 5 of the Code, the publication said the content of the course related to the training of teachers and was therefore a matter of public interest. It said this was “magnified” by the fact that it was publicly funded and had been promoted by the Department of Education.
The publication said it had published the audio to avoid Gript.ie itself from suffering reputational harm, arising from a statement published by the university in support of the course and its teachers. It said that after receiving the complaint it amended the audio “in good faith” to remove participants’ names.
The Press Ombudsman notes that she agreed to a late request from the publication to include new material. This was based on screenshots from a book for schoolchildren published by a teacher who had done the DCU course. The publication said this was “effectively the intimacy lesson from the DCU course, with some slightly watered-down language”. It said this was “rather relevant”.
In response, the complainants said they were not accountable for a book published several months after the articles by a third party and written by a former student.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes that there was a considerable volume of correspondence in relation to this complaint, all of which she has considered.
Principle 1
The Press Ombudsman finds that Gript.ie provides no evidence that the complainants gave adult teachers to understand that sexually explicit exercises used during their training were to be replicated in school classrooms. Adaptation of material so that it is age appropriate is not replication and to suggest otherwise, as the publication does, is distortion.
Self-evidently, the teaching of “Relationships and Sexuality Education” to children will involve discussion of relationships and sexuality. The articles contained no evidence that DCU was doing anything other than running a post graduate course to enable adult teachers of SPHE/RSE to teach the subject to secondary school children in support of the national curriculum.
The published screenshot of a WhatsApp message showed that material taught to the adult teachers could be adapted for use in the classroom. To suggest it showed that material is to be replicated is factually inaccurate and misleading. The audio clip likewise indicated that vocabulary discussed at the DCU course “came up” in a classroom setting. It does not show that the teacher brought up the vocabulary or that there was replication.
The Press Ombudsman finds that these articles were presented as a journalistic exposé. However, while the articles indicated that the publication shared its sources’ misgivings about the SPHE/RSE curriculum and what a source described as its “gender ideology”, the university has been funded precisely to support that curriculum. Gript.ie is entitled to express its views but is required by the Code of Practice to base its reporting on facts.
To publish claims that a university used public funding to advocate that teachers expose children to inappropriate sexual material in an ideologically driven way is a serious one. The publication delivered no evidence that this happened. The Press Ombudsman finds the articles are inaccurate, misleading and distorted and in breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
Principle 3
The Press Ombudsman agrees that the use of public funds for teaching is a matter of public interest.
She notes that the publication did not dispute that it published an audio recording obtained by a source using subterfuge. It therefore relied on the public interest justification contained in Principle 3 of the Code for the publication of the recording.
However, the Press Ombudsman finds that this recording was made of a private, informal chat during a break in the course that revealed nothing of investigative import. She finds that the publication of this material obtained by use of subterfuge was not justified by the public interest and that Principle 3 has been breached.
Principle 5
The Press Ombudsman finds that those who were secretly recorded and identified during a rest break in training had a legitimate expectation that their conversation was private. Principle 5 allows that the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public interest. However, the Press Ombudsman finds that the audio recording published had no public interest content.
The publication states that the recording was not made by one of its employees but rather by “an involved party” who believed it to be in the public interest. The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication took responsibility for the material when it exercised its editorial judgement and chose to publish it. The publication breached Principle 5 of the Code.
In respect of the late material submitted by the publication, the Press Ombudsman finds that its contents were not the responsibility of the complainants and were not relevant to this complaint.
Other parts of the complaint were not upheld
The Press Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint from DCU that Gript.ie had also breached Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights) of the Code.
On Principle 2 of the Code of Practice, the complainants said the articles presented unconfirmed reports as fact and used conjecture to suggest that exercises and resources used for teaching students who were adult schoolteachers were to be deployed in classrooms with school students who were children. They said the articles appeared to rely on a single source and that this person had campaigned against SPHE/RSE reform but that this was not stated.
The publication said the articles were based on multiple sources and extensive investigation and that this was made clear. It asserted that the named source had been accepted onto the course and her background was not relevant.
On Principle 4 of the Code of Practice, the complainants said the misrepresentation in the articles had damaged the reputation of DCU and of those involved in teaching the course. They said the 24 October article and audio constituted malicious misrepresentation and contained unfounded accusations and that reasonable care had not been taken in checking facts.
The publication said “multiple teachers” on the course had come through the course with a belief that what they were being shown was for replication in the classroom. It said the complainants had refused to engage with it and specifically had refused to tell it which participants had confirmed being told exercises and resources used on the DCU course were not age appropriate or suitable for use in the classroom. Nor, it said, had the complainants told the publication what these participants “had actually said.”
Decision
Principle 2
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication attributed statements and assertions to named and unnamed sources rather than presenting conjecture as fact. The publication was not required to provide background information on its named source. There is no breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
Principle 4
The complainants state that malicious misrepresentations and unfounded accusations made by the publication have damaged the college’s reputation and the reputations of those teaching the course.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication made unreasonable demands for details about unnamed persons cited by the complainants, while itself relying on multiple unnamed sources.
However, she does not find evidence that the publication published material based on malicious misrepresentations or unfounded accusations such as would cause individual or institutional reputational damage. She finds that Principle 4 was not breached.