Right of Reply – Have Your Say

Today we have an important question to ask IrishEVs readers when it comes to whether we continue to offer corporations the right of reply when reporting on issues of greenwashing, ecocide or misinformation.

The right of reply has been a guiding principle of journalism for decades, if not centuries, and guarantees that any person or corporation has the right to defend themselves in the face of public criticism.

In some nations this is a mandatory regulation of the press, while in the EU, for example, there is no legal requirement for the media to uphold the right of reply – although proposals for such a law have been tabled.

In Ireland, a Right of Reply Scheme was implemented in the Broadcasting Act 2009, which came into effect in 2011.

It ensures that broadcasters must issue a correction where “incorrect facts or information have been broadcast about a person, where the assertion of such incorrect facts or information has impugned that person’s honour or reputation.”

Notably, this ruling which comes under the Defamation Act of 2009, applies specifically to “a person” rather than a corporation.

A great example of this would be the response from ESB when IrishEVs enquired how the publicly funded body would address the very real safety concerns of women at public EV chargers – ESB’s PR representatives took this as an opportunity for self-promotion that was entirely unrelated to the questions posed about women’s safety just weeks after the murder of Aisling Murphy:

“As part of its commitment to investing in, developing and expanding the public EV charging network, ESB is currently rolling out 50 high power charging hubs primarily located at motorway and national road service stations across Ireland.”

“These hubs can charge between three and eight vehicles simultaneously and are capable of providing up to 100 km of electric driving range in as little as six minutes.  This work is part of a €20m investment to expand and enhance the charging network across Ireland and is part funded by the “These hubs can charge between three and eight vehicles simultaneously and are capable of providing up to 100 km of electric driving range in as little as six minutes.  This work is part of a €20m investment to expand and enhance the charging network across Ireland and is part funded by the Government’s Climate Action Fund. This network will help meet the charging requirements of electric vehicles in the coming years.”

Only when we challenged them on the irrelevance of this response – and how cavalier they were in self-promotion when asked about an incredibly serious topic – did they actually address the specific questions we asked.

Over the past year we have seen an increasing number of PR agencies issuing “no comment” responses when we have enquired about their clients committing greenwashing. In the PR industry this is seen as a cardinal sin, as it is typically an admission of guilt where any comment would be more incriminating that not commenting.

Toyota Ireland have, on more than one occasion, taken several weeks of chasing for comment only to issue a “no comment” statement – which has the effect of both limiting transparency and accountability from corporations, and deliberately delaying the publication of articles that hold their business to account.

This is indicative of the PR industry right now.

They are not interested in addressing the questions holding their clients accountable for malpractice, injustice or profiting from worsening the Climate Crisis. They are only interested in being able to report to their client that they have managed their reputation by providing carefully crafted answers that avoid culpability.

This is not how public relations should work – we should know, our Editor worked in PR for the best part of a decade and specialised in crisis communications.

Have Your Say

As such, we are now asking our readers whether we should continue to give corporations and their PR agencies the opportunity to reply before our articles are published.

While we will always keep open the opportunity for corrections where a corporation provides verifiable facts that counter what is published in our articles, we are feel it is currently unsustainable to spend weeks chasing for comments that often do not address the specific questions that we ask.

We believe that this approach is tantamount to allowing corporations to continue spreading lies and misinformation and to avoid accountability, and as a consumer advice website dedicated to separating fact from fiction, we believe that this is detrimental to our core principles.

There is a big difference between providing balance and platforming misinformation – the latter being all too common in established Irish media.

So, it’s over to you.

Complete the poll below before 6pm on Thursday 28th July and let us know if you think we should continue to offer the right of reply before publication, or whether you feel this is detrimental in holding corporations (and their PR agencies) accountable.

We’ll follow your lead.

What To Read Next