Thursday 27 October 2016

Press Ombudsman upholds complaint by Mr Kevin Clarke

Published 18/09/2016 | 02:30

Office of the Press Ombudsman
Office of the Press Ombudsman

On May 23, 2016, the Press Ombudsman decided to uphold a complaint made by Mr Kevin Clarke against the Sunday Independent.

  • Go To

On March 20, 2016, the Sunday Independent published an article under the headline "Pharmacies a prescription for prices that are far too high". The thrust of the article was that profits made by retail pharmacies were very high and that consumers were paying too much for medicines. Support for this viewpoint came from comments by an academic expert in a Dublin university.

Mr Kevin Clarke, a pharmacist, wrote to the Editor of the Sunday Independent claiming that a number of statements in the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland. In particular he challenged the claim in the article that "Many pharmacists get almost €1m a year from the State for drugs reimbursed through the medical card and other State schemes."

As Mr Clarke did not receive a response from the Sunday Independent he made a formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman's Office.

During conciliation the Managing Editor of Independent News and Media stood over the article, pointing out that it was published as an opinion piece and not as a news article, and offered to resolve the complaint by the publication of a clarification and by publishing a letter from Mr Clarke responding to the column. The text of the proposed clarification read:

"In an article published on March 20, 2016, under the headline "Pharmacies a prescription for prices that are far too high", it was stated that 'many pharmacies get almost €1m a year from the state for drugs reimbursed'. We are happy to clarify that this should have said 'some pharmacists'."

The Editor also offered to clarify that some of the facts complained about were the views of the academic expert and not those of the author.

Mr Clarke did not accept the wording of the proposed clarification and suggested an alternative wording, which was unacceptable to the newspaper.

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

Mr Clarke submitted a HSE spreadsheet itemising State expenditure on pharmacists resulting from prescribed drugs costs reimbursement schemes in 2014. This showed the pharmacy on top of the list received €835,910 and the next three pharmacies received between €700,000 and €800,000.

This undermined the accuracy of the published claim that "many pharmacists get almost €1m a year". Therefore I am upholding the complaint. The clarification proposed by the newspaper ("some pharmacists received almost €1m") did not in my view sufficiently address this inaccuracy.

Other parts of the complaint were not upheld. The full decision can be accessed at The newspaper and the complainant each appealed the Press Ombudsman's decision.

The Sunday Independent appealed the decision on the grounds that (1) there had been an error in the application of the Code by the Press Ombudsman and (2) that there was significant new information available. The appeal was heard by the Press Council at its meeting on September 2, 2016. The Press Council decided that the Press Ombudsman did not err in his application of the Code and that there was no significant new information available to the Council that had not been available to the Press Ombudsman.

Mr Clarke also appealed the decision but the Press Council concluded that the appeal did not contain sufficient grounds to overturn the decision of the Press Ombudsman.

Sunday Indo Business

Read More

Promoted articles

Editors Choice

Also in Business