Principle 1: Truth and Accuracy

1.1 In reporting news and information, newspapers and periodicals 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.

Principle 2: Distinguishing fact and comment

2.1 Comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact, but newspapers and periodicals are entitled to advocate strongly their own views on topics.
2.2 Readers are entitled to expect that the content of a publication reflects the best judgement of editors and writers and has not been inappropriately influenced by undisclosed interests. Where relevant, any significant financial interest of an organisation should be disclosed. Writers should disclose significant potential conflicts of interest to their editor.

Principle 3: Fairness and honesty

3.1 Newspapers and periodicals shall strive at all times for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information.

3.2 Publications shall not obtain information, photographs or other material through misrepresentation or subterfuge, unless justified by the public interest.

3.3 Journalists and photographers must not obtain, or seek to obtain, information and photographs through harassment, unless their actions are justified in the public interest.

Principle 4: Respect for Rights

Everyone has constitutional protection for his/her good name. Newspapers and periodicals shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. Publications must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

Principle 5: Privacy

5.1 Privacy is a human right, protected as a personal right in the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into Irish law. The private and family life, home and correspondence of everyone must be respected.

5.2 Readers are entitled to have news and comment presented with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or in the public interest.

5.3 Sympathy and discretion must be shown at all times in seeking information in situations of personal grief or shock. In publishing such information, the feelings of grieving families should be taken into account. This should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial proceedings.

5.4 Public persons are entitled to privacy. However, where a person holds public office, deals with public affairs, follows a public career, or has sought or obtained publicity for his activities, publications of relevant details of his private life and circumstances may be justifiable where the information revealed relates to the validity of the person’s conduct, the credibility of his public statements, the value of his publicly expressed views or is otherwise in the public interest.

5.5 Taking photographs of individuals in private places without their consent is not acceptable, unless justified by the public interest.

Principle 6: Protection of source

Journalists shall protect confidential sources of information.

Principle 7: Court reporting

Newspapers and periodicals shall strive to ensure that court reports (including the use of photographs) are fair and accurate, are not prejudicial to the right to a fair trial and that the presumption of innocence is respected.

Principle 8: Incitement to Hatred

Newspapers and periodicals shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

Principle 9: Children

9.1 Newspapers and periodicals shall take particular care in seeking and presenting information or comment about a child under the age of 16.

9.2 Journalists and editors should have regard for the vulnerability of children and in all dealings with children should bear in mind the age of the child, whether parental or other adult consent has been obtained for such dealings, the sensitivity of the subject matter, and what circumstances if any make the story one of public interest. Young people should be free to complete their time in school without unnecessary intrusion. The fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian must not be used as sole justification for publishing details about a child’s private life.

Principle 10: Publication of the Decision of the Press Ombudsman

10.1 When requested or required by the Press Ombudsman and or the Press Council to do so, newspapers and periodicals shall publish the decision in relation to a complaint with due prominence.

10.2 The content of this code will be reviewed at regular intervals.”

Looking at the basic principles of Irish journalism, as outlined above, it is fully evident that few if any of those principles played a part in the media’s coverage and interpretation of the work of Mrs. Christina Gallagher, the House of Prayer and with what she and all associated with her believe to be this special work of Our Blessed Mother.
How could even the most basic journalistic principles apply, when the most essential elements of the “story” were ignored? Where are the journalists, when the main figures in a so-called story are never interviewed, and other people - who could have provided the truth - are never approached? Only critics of Mrs. Gallagher and her spiritual director - almost all anonymous and mostly indistinguishable from fictional people - are ‘consulted’ and supported. Is that to be called journalism? Lets test the principles and see how many apply...

PRINCIPLE 1 Truth and Accuracy

PRINCIPLE 2 Distinguishing fact and comment

There has been little regard for either of these ‘guidelines’ in the coverage given to Mrs. Gallagher and the House of Prayer, throughout 2008. And the failure of the media people, even on national radio and television - apart altogether from the print media - to observe any such principles, tells a lot. The detractors and critics were afforded maximum space and time but anything positive or supportive was ignored. In early 2008, for example, when a national radio station afternoon show dealt with the story over a number of days, when members of the public favourably disposed towards Achill tried to have their say, they were unable to be accommodated. Curiously, when one lady, apparently a secretary on the radio show was challenged, her response was that not only was she not Catholic, but was anti- Catholic. Was that why only critics were given time? Even more blatant, on three separate occasions in a few weeks, there were ‘previews’ of three upcoming afternoon shows, advertising the fact that they would have individuals, even priests, criticising the House of Prayer and Mrs. Gallagher. Those afternoon reports never materialised. Was this fair practice or blatant and mischevious bias by the radio people involved?

The presentation of genuine facts has been absent in the ongoing vendetta by opponents of the House of Prayer and Mrs. Gallagher. Almost everything has been irresponsible comment or conjecture. There has been no attempt to report genuine facts, with but one exception - an article in a Catholic weekly paper early in 2008, when one of the chief protagonists was interviewed, and made it clear, on his own admission, and in the opinion of the writer, that he had personal issues, and that he had contacted the newspapers many months previously, and wanted his charges and criticisms published. The article made it clear that he claimed to be personally aggrieved, and that this was why ‘like a disciple scorned’, he was so vindictive. Strange, that the tabloid accusers of the House of Prayer and Mrs. Gallagher never picked up on this newsy admission by the man who was leading the campaign against Achill, and who had misleadingly claimed to be a core person involved in the House of Prayer mission, though this was never the case.

Using false and sensational unsubstantiated claims and reckless statements, attributed almost weekly to anonymous sources, cannot be described as fairness or honesty. There has been a total lack of honesty and fairness in this media campaign, in situations where hundreds of people could stand up and verify that alleged events never occurred. Honesty presupposes integrity and balance. Misleading images were regularly used to convey the ‘slant’ the media wanted to give. Photo captions libelled and defamed those pictured, time after time.

Everyone has constitutional protection for his/her good name. Newspapers and periodicals shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations. Publications must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.

We repeat the above, because none of those principles have been respected in instances where it applied to hundreds of people, and not just Mrs. Gallagher and Rev. Gerard McGinnity. No so-called ‘facts’ were checked, no care was taken. All those who visit and support Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayers have been dealt with and treated as if they were fools. All have been described variously as “gullible” or “touched”, or “simple minded” and some were shown in photographs printed in national tabloid papers - and these falsities against them were propagated worldwide on the web. People who show support have endured ridicule in their own local communities, because of the biased and blatantly dishonest media coverage. Some were driven to stop going, sad to say. The tabloid lies and their appallingly one-sided treatment were allowed more credence than the integrity of those who, if asked, could tell the story as it is.
In particular, Mrs. Gallagher’s good name and reputation was mercilessly assailed by repeated use of words such as “fake”, “scam”, “fraud”, “phony” “self proclaimed” etc

In the past, as far back as 1990/1991, a Sunday tabloid sensation sheet invaded the privacy of Mrs. Gallagher, in order to write an untrue and misleading story about her and obtain a photo of her, but never in the past has such levels of invasion of privacy and such injustice been shown towards Mrs. Gallagher and Fr. McGinnity as in 2008. An orchestrated vendetta is the only description suitable. It has been beyond all sense or reason throughout the past twelve months, with one media source following another, in being used to spread slander and untruths in order to destroy.
Mrs. Gallagher and Fr. McGinnity have been slandered and defamed and held up to ridicule before the whole country, while their rights to privacy were totally ignored. All those supporting the mission of Our Lady Queen of Peace condemn in the strongest terms the appallingly unjust and false image which has been propagated regarding both of these innocent people. A falsity has been presented as fact by a hostile and reckless media, intent only on scandal, sensation and destruction, and ready to disregard every journalistic principle, for whatever purpose, but for which they are answerable. Important projects undertaken to advance Our Lady’s work were vulgarised and distorted by a media that never bothered to look for a positive aspect.

Most definitely, the media protected their so-called ‘sources’ in order to make unsubstantiated claims and allegations, but journalists cannot justify such ‘protection’ when even the existence of sources cannot be verified. If any person comes forward with a factual story of wrongdoing, they should of course be able to do so in a protected manner, but to allow unverifiable allegations against identified and named persons into print without any effort to present the truth is never justifiable. Yet this is what has been happening almost weekly. A few individuals, and some with multiple identities, have been used to support the same story, in different ways in so-called ‘exposes’ that amount to gutter journalism. Should people who admit they are prepared to get people to tell lies in order to do harm, be treated as credible critics of anything?

For many of those who support the House of Prayer and Mrs. Gallagher, this has been the most horrific aspect of the entire campaign. It has been a vendetta calculated to cause hatred and contempt, to cause two innocent people of the highest integrity, to be regarded as charlatans and criminals, accusing them of using vulnerable people to enrich themselves. How could such lies be called journalism, rather than hate propaganda and incitement? When people’s good names are destroyed and their characters assassinated, and they are portrayed as hate figures by an irresponsible media, who is more accountable - the person seeking to do harm, or the media which lends its ready support and space?
In the annals of Irish journalism, it is unlikely that a more blatant example of unfair and unjust incitement to hatred will ever be found - yet it is all there now, in the media pages or records, as proof and evidence.
Such blatant false accusations made against Christina Gallagher and Fr. McGinnity must certainly be illegal as well as recklessly exposing them to vilification and personal danger. Mrs.Gallagher has received threats to her life and is in grave danger as a result of this campaign.
It is totally contrary to the truth, and all of us who regularly visit the House of Prayer and know all those involved can verify this. And be it noted, all who support Achill House of Prayer have been victims of religious discrimination of a vicious and extraordinary kind, and exposed to vilification in their own communities. We have been accused of cult-like behaviour when nothing could be further from the truth - unless being a practising and believing Catholic is now unacceptable.
The journalists involved, and the publications and other media who have indulged in this campaign have a very serious case to answer, in respect of every single person affected, incidentally, lest anyone think otherwise. Disgraceful allegations have been made about many innocent people. It will be interesting to see how the media and their researchers and writers reply, when the appropriate time of reckoning arrives. Of course in today’s Ireland, it seems to be considered acceptable to slander, defame and ridicule all those who believe in God, particularly if they happen to be Catholic. We have seen it happen in recent years and months in other areas, when Christmas Cribs or crucifixes are removed from public places, lest they cause offence, but at the same time, we have anti-christian material allowed, i.e. highly offensive displays and shows, etc. . Opportunities to attack christian values are given full scope over the airwaves, with the public purse picking up the tabs, while in other countries, full respect is shown for the faith and customs there.

Even from the points above, it must be clear that the sections of the Irish media involved in the recent campaign of denigration and defamation stand indicted in the eyes of all fair minded people who believe in truth. The once-proud standards of journalism have been sullied by the acceptance of such low standards.