The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint against Gript.ie by Bernadette Linnane.
The complaint concerns an article published in January 2023 in Gript.ie. Ms Linnane stated that it breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice.
The article opens with the assertion that a senator (named by Gript.ie) “has highlighted the increase in abortions for Down Syndrome in Ireland, telling the Senate that ‘something has happened’ in our country since the 2018 referendum”. It goes on to say that the senator was referring to a report published in The Irish Times in December 2022 “which revealed that 95% of parents whose babies are diagnosed with Down’s [sic] Syndrome at the Rotunda Hospital choose to have an abortion”. Citing another Irish Times article from 2018, Gript.ie said a professor (named by Gript.ie) had said then that “approximately half” of parents receiving a pre-natal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, would, in the words of Gript.ie, abort “the unborn baby”. (The professor was then Master of the Rotunda.)
Ms Linnane said the senator had not highlighted such an increase in Ireland, since no such increase had occurred. She said that no legal right existed in Ireland to obtain an abortion in the case of Down Syndrome. She referred to the 2022 Irish Times report which was the source of the senator’s remarks. This was based on an interview with the professor who, Ms Linnane pointed out, spoke about “… the 95 per cent who choose to travel…”. Ms Linnane also complained of Gript.ie’s claim that “Commenting on the [Irish Times] report” the senator said that it “evidenced a significant rise for abortions for Down Syndrome post-repeal”. She referred to the official Seanad record and said it showed that the senator “did not say this”.
Gript.ie contended that as abortion is legal in Ireland prior to 12 weeks gestation, it was “factual and objective” to refer to abortions on the grounds of Down Syndrome taking place in this country. It said there was an “incongruence” between the headline of the 2022 Irish Times report, which read, it said, “Rotunda master says 95% of parents in Down Syndrome cases choose abortion” and the quotation cited by Ms Linnane on the decision to travel for abortion. It said the professor’s “later comments” were different from “the comments that led to the headline”.
On Ms Linnane’s complaint about what the senator “did not say”, Gript.ie said this was not a quotation but a paraphrase which conveyed the ‘sentiment and context’ behind what the senator said. It said this did not mean it constituted the opinion of the writer of the article, “as [it was] a fair description” of the statement the senator made. 2
Gript.ie said that based on what the professor was quoted in the Irish Times as saying “it would seem obvious” that “increased numbers of abortions [were] being carried out in Ireland”.
While insisting the article was accurate the editor offered to amend the piece so that it contained “no specific mention of the country that such abortions take place in”. Ms Linnane rejected this.
Decision
The Press Ombudsman finds that Gript.ie’s article has not adhered to Principle 1 of the Code of Practice which requires a publication to strive for truth and accuracy. The article is based on a senator’s response to a “revelation” made in another publication, The Irish Times. However, it falsely claims that what has been revealed is an increase in abortions for Down Syndrome carried out in Ireland, when The Irish Times article makes it clear that the abortions referred to have been carried out elsewhere, given that, as Ms Linnane also points out, abortion on the grounds of a Down Syndrome diagnosis is not legally provided for in this country. The attempt to claim an “incongruence” between The Irish Times headline and the body of its article is not credible. The striving required here was merely a careful reading of The Irish Times article. Statistics from 2018, again obtained from The Irish Times, are used inaccurately to reach a conclusion compatible with Gript.ie’s key assertion.
The Gript.ie article states that the senator “said” The Irish Times report evidenced a rise for abortions for Down Syndrome “post repeal”. The editor rejects Ms Linnane’s assertion that “the senator did not say this”. However, the senator did not say what Gript.ie attributed to him, whether he implied it or not.
This article is not presented as a conventional report of proceedings at the Seanad, nor as a commentary, but rather as a hybrid form which may be described as an opinionated news report. The Press Ombudsman finds that in framing the actual words spoken by the senator in this way, Gript.ie is expressing its opinion of what he actually said. It does so in the context of an article which is already compromised by inaccuracy. By failing to distinguish what is fact and what is comment the report thus breaches Principle 2 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the editor’s offer is inadequate to deal with these breaches. Removing any “specific mention” of where the abortions discussed were carried out will not resolve the problems inherent in the Gript.ie article which requires more, rather than less, specificity.
5 April 2023
Appeal
Gript.ie appealed the decision on the grounds that the procedures followed by the Press Ombudsman in making her decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints. 3
The appeal was considered by the Press Council on 7 June 2023.
Appeal Decision
The appeal is based on one ground only, namely that the procedures followed by the Press Ombudsman in making her decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for submitting and considering complaints.
The appellant has not identified any published procedure which has been breached. The published procedures allow the Press Ombudsman to refer a complaint directly to the Press Council. Whether to exercise this option in any given case is a matter entirely within her discretion. It is not a matter relating to published procedures which can properly form the basis of an appeal to the Press Council.
The Press Council has therefore decided to reject the appeal.
It also takes the opportunity to express its full confidence in the Press Ombudsman’s integrity and professionalism.
Loading ...