Corrections & Clarifications

Mr David Quinn and The Irish Times

Wed Sep 23 2020 - 06:00

The Press Council of Ireland has upheld an appeal made by Mr David Quinn against a decision of the Press Ombudsman.

The Press Ombudsman had decided that The Irish Times had offered to take and took sufficient action to resolve a complaint made by Mr Quinn under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland. The appeal was upheld on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of the Code of Practice because The Irish Times had not corrected the article in a manner that was in accordance with Principle 1 of the Code.

On 12 February 2020 The Irish Times published an article in its print edition under the heading “Surge in number of new cases of mumps” and in its online edition under the heading “One thousand new cases of mumps recorded in first six weeks of year”. Both versions included the claim in relation to the increase that “Although non-vaccination is a significant factor, waning immunity has also played a role”

Mr Quinn wrote to the editor of The Irish Times stating that the claim about the proportion of unvaccinated people getting mumps was “clearly untrue ”as “according to the HPSC (Health Protection Surveillance Centre) and the eurosurveillance.org website only 8% of cases in Ireland in 2018 were unvaccinated and between August 2018 and January 2020 only 12% of cases were unvaccinated”. Mr Quinn asked that this “significant inaccuracy” be correctly promptly and with due prominence. In a follow up email to The Irish Times Mr Quinn provided several links to reports that the increase in mumps worldwide was primarily due to waning immunity amongst vaccinated people. He also noted that the online version of the article had been amended. He asked the editor “Is this an acknowledgement that the original article was incorrect?” He noted that there had been no attempt in the print edition to “put the record straight”

READ MORE

Mr Quinn made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

The editor of The Irish Times defended what had been published, noting that 68% of the people who had got mumps in the eurosurveillance.org research had not given their vaccination status and that it seemed “reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of the persons who did not report a vaccination status were not actually vaccinated”. He further noted that Dr Suzanne Cotter of the Health Protection Surveillance Centre “maintains that mumps are more likely to occur among unvaccinated people or those who had received only one dose” (of vaccine). He added that the online article had been amended “on foot of Mr Quinn’s complaint” from ”Although most cases have involved unvaccinated people” to “Although non-vaccination is a significant factor”. The editor offered to publish a correction in the print edition of the newspaper.

Mr Quinn responded that the offer to publish a correction in the print edition “does not go far enough”. He also claimed that the editor’s reference to Dr Cotter’s views were an attempt to “obfuscate the matter” drawing attention to a report on mumps amongst 15-24 year-olds in Northern Ireland where the majority of those in that age group who got mumps had received the two doses of the MMR vaccine. He also claimed that his complaint about the online article “had not been addressed sufficiently” or “promptly”.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

Decision of the Press Ombudsman

There is clearly disagreement about the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in protecting people against mumps. Mr Quinn has cited reports that many people who have been vaccinated have reduced or lost their immunity. It is quite clear however that the medical authorities fundamentally believe in the importance of the MMR vaccine and the role it plays in preventing the spread of mumps. Mr Quinn believes the article was inaccurate in its references to the proportion of unvaccinated people who get mumps. The Irish Times by amending the article online acknowledged that it, as originally worded, needed addressing. It is my view that Mr Quinn's concerns were addressed adequately by the amendment of the article online. Principle 1.3 of the Code requires when appropriate a … clarification shall be published promptly and with due prominence. I note that the article currently online includes reference to it having been edited. Whilst Mr Quinn disagrees, I believe this is a sufficient acknowledgement of the need for an amendment to the original article. I would have preferred if readers of the article today were provided with more information on the nature of the edit but, nonetheless, I find that sufficient action was taken to address Mr Quinn's complaint and therefore I find no breach of Principle 1.

In regard to the print edition of the article the offer by the editor to publish a correction was sufficient to address the requirement found in Principle 1.3 of the Code.

Decision of the Press Council

On 4 September 2020 The Press Council upheld the appeal submitted by Mr Quinn on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

The Press Council of Ireland has upheld an appeal made by Mr David Quinn against a decision of the Press Ombudsman.

The Press Ombudsman had decided that The Irish Times had offered to take sufficient action to resolve a complaint made by Mr Quinn under Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland. The appeal was upheld on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of the Code of Practice because The Irish Times had not corrected the article in a manner that was in accordance with Principle 1 of the Code.

On 11 March 2020 under the heading “Over 200 mumps cases reported in Ireland last week, HSE says” The Irish Times reported on an outbreak of mumps in Ireland. The report included a statement from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) that “The best protection against mumps is to be fully vaccinated with two doses of the MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine”. The report also stated that “There had been a similar outbreak in the UK where almost half of the laboratory-confirmed cases reported last year were in unvaccinated people with the highest incidence rates seen amongst those born in the later 1990s and early 2000s who missed out on the MMR vaccine when they were younger”. It was further stated that “there is a similar profile in Ireland”

Mr Quinn wrote to The Irish Times stating that the article implied that almost half the cases of mumps in Ireland were in unvaccinated people. He stated that the latest statistic he had seen from the HPSC was that in 2018 only 8% of cases of mumps in Ireland occurred in unvaccinated people.

The Irish Times responded stating that all the statistics in the report were accurate and from health authority sources in Ireland. It referenced HPSC research which, it said, confirmed that whilst the majority of cases in the current outbreak of mumps have “unknown vaccination status” the most affected age groups were 15-24 years. It quoted from a separate HPSC researcher who said that many of those affected would have been part of the so-called “Wakefield cohort” whose parents decided not to get them vaccinated as children. The newspaper’s response concluded with “Based, on all of the above it can be concluded that Ireland has a similar profile to the UK in terms of the mumps outbreak” and that there wasn’t a significant inaccuracy in the report.

Mr Quinn rejected the newspaper’s defence of the report stating that it was “self-evidently false as is borne out by the statistics published on the HPSC’s website …” and that the newspaper was “obviously determined to point the finger at the unvaccinated regardless of the evidence”.

The Irish Times responded and offered as “there are different schools of thought on the issue” that Mr Quinn submit a letter for publication.

Mr Quinn said that he “was not interested in having a letter published” and wanted a new article which “acknowledged your significant inaccuracy”.

He made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman on the basis of a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

The editor of The Irish Times in a submission to the Office of the Press Ombudsman defended the article but stated “… in the interest of conciliation, I am prepared to delete from the article the comparison statement that “There is a similar profile in Ireland”.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

Decision of the Press Ombudsman

I have concluded that the newspaper offered to take sufficient action to resolve this complaint by offering to publish a letter and to remove from the online report the sentence that is at the centre of the complaint. Principle 1 of the Code of Practice states:

Principle 1 − Truth and Accuracy

1.1 In reporting news and information, the press shall strive at all times for truth and accuracy.

1.2 When a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report or picture has been published, it shall be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

1.3 When appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published promptly and with due prominence.

The Irish Times offered to delete the claim in the article that there was a similar profile in Ireland to the UK profile and to publish a letter in which the complainant could give his views on the matter under dispute. This offer was sufficient to conform to requirements found in Principle 1 of the Code.

Decision of the Press Council

On 4 September 2020 The Press Council upheld the appeal submitted by Mr Quinn on the grounds that the Press Ombudsman had erred in his application of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

LATEST STORIES