Complaint
On February 24th, 2025, the Press Ombudsman upheld in part a complaint by Dr Niall Meehan about an article published in The Irish Times in September 2024. The article is a piece of analysis headlined “Time for State to hold religious orders to account”.
Dr Meehan complained about a statement in the article that the 2009 Ryan Report was “about the abuse of children and its cover-up in orphanages, reformatories and industrial schools run by 18 religious congregations”. He states that “in fact, the Commission’s report was about abuse in residential institutions regulated and/or financed by the Irish state”. He points out that after describing the remit of the Ryan Commission as though it only concerned Catholic institutions in a July 2024 article, The Irish Times had published a correction, which he appends. The September article, he asserts, repeats the original error and is therefore inaccurate, in breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.
Referring to the Ryan Report, the complainant states that the article refers to the failure to make “promised” redress contributions by “relevant congregations” but excludes reference in the Report to the redress contribution offered, but not paid, by a Protestant institution. He argues that this exclusion constitutes a “significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report” in breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
Referring to the 2021 Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation Report, the complainant notes that while the publication refers to findings on the treatment of women and children “in those institutions”, it goes on to assert that the Government had been unable to reach agreement on redress contributions “with the congregations that ran these homes”. The complainant states that the Protestant Church of Ireland had “also refused to agree a redress contribution”, and that the omission of reference to this by the publication constitutes “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report” in breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
Dr Meehan also complains that The Irish Times did not publish a letter he sent “to correct [its] distorted reporting”. He asserts that this constitutes a breach of Principle 1 of the Code.
The publication responded that there had been no error and no breaches of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice. It said that whereas the July article had been inaccurate in its summary of the purpose for which the Ryan Commission was set up, the September article had been accurate in analysing how it did its work and how the State and religious congregations behaved in the aftermath. It noted that the complainant had himself commented that the Ryan Commission had become “fixated” on Roman Catholic institutions.
It said the complainant “did not get to dictate” to The Irish Times, and nor did he “have any right to referee” how the publication characterised a public report or the behaviour of organisations. It said it was “genuinely astonishing” that the complainant would claim that failure to publish a letter from him constituted a breach of the Code of Practice. The publication said it had nothing to correct, retract, apologise for, clarify or explain. It said it was not required to publish any response to the complaint and would not publish the complainant’s letter.
Upheld decision
Principle 1 of the Code of Practice requires publications to “strive at all times for truth and accuracy”. It requires that any “significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report” should be corrected. It states that “when appropriate, a retraction, apology, clarification, explanation or response shall be published”.
The complainant’s depiction of the remit of “the Ryan Report” [The Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse] is correct, and this was acknowledged in the correction published by The Irish Times in July 2024 which states that whereas the article said the Commission was into the abuse of children in institutions “run by religious congregations”, it was, in fact, set up to look into the “abuse of children in institutions and other places”.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the difference is significant. The September 2024 article is, as its headline makes clear, about the State and its dealings with the religious orders. These are Catholic bodies. The 2009 Ryan Report, however, was about institutions not solely but including those run by these Catholic congregations. Analysis of the extent to which the Report dealt comprehensively with its subject is a separate matter. The publication’s claim that its description of what the Report was “about” reflects “how it did its work” does not stand up. An inaccurate statement has been made, in breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.
Other parts of the complaint were not upheld
In relation to the other part of the complaint regarding the Ryan Report, the Press Ombudsman notes that regardless of the inaccuracy noted in the upheld part of this decision with reference to what the Report was about, when the article states that the Report found that the sexual abuse of boys “was endemic in such institutions”, it is clear that the institutions it is referring to are the Catholic congregations.
The statement about “the most relevant congregations” is also a clear reference to some among the Catholic congregations. The Press Ombudsman finds that there is no onus on the publication to write about the situation in Protestant institutions as these are not the focus of the article. She does not accept the complainant’s assertion that there is a breach of Principle 1 of the Code of Practice in this regard.
In relation to the 2021 Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation Report, the Press Ombudsman notes that the article refers to the Government having been “unable to secure agreement to date with the congregations which ran those homes”. The Press Ombudsman is satisfied that the publication refers to the congregations because the article is specifically about the State and the Catholic church, rather than to imply that the homes under investigation were all Catholic run. The first reference to the Commission indicates that its remit was non-denominational. She does not accept the complainant’s assertion that the decision not to write about redress issues in relation to Protestant institutions is sectarian. It is, rather, a matter of editorial discretion. This is not a breach of Principle 1.
Dr Meehan’s claim that failure to publish his letter is a breach of the Code of Practice is unfounded. The Press Ombudsman finds that it is unarguably the case that the editor of a publication has full discretion when it comes to publishing letters.
Appeal to Press Council of Ireland
The editor of The Irish Times appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that there had been an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.
The editor argued that the Press Ombudsman erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code because in her consideration of the complaint she had not taken into account other elements of the Code, including Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), and the overall spirit of the Code. The editor also argued that the context in which the article was written was not taken into consideration in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principle 1.
Appeal decision
The Press Council decided to reject the appeal.
It agreed that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code. It also decided that it was appropriate for the Press Ombudsman to consider the complaint only in the context of the Principle of the Code cited in the complaint, which was Principle 1.
