Far more readers complained about the photograph on the front page on July 20th than about any single item that has appeared since I started in this job eight years ago. More than 150 people sent e-mails, phoned or wrote letters to object to the image of the shoes and clothes of Niall Murphy who, with his sister, had drowned tragically in the sea off Belmullet in Co Mayo.
Many of those I spoke to were clearly upset. They said they couldn't help thinking how they would feel if it had been their children who had drowned and they were looking at this photograph.
Most referred to the trauma of the family of the drowned children, and said that by publishing the photograph The Irish Times was adding to their appalling distress. Some callers had lost children in tragic circumstances and told us we couldn't possibly imagine the hurt and upset the photograph had caused them, not to mention the family of these particular children.
Others were sad that their newspaper had been insensitive, that publishing the photograph showed a lack of integrity. They wondered whether tabloid values were now acceptable to The Irish Times. Had we, they asked, succumbed to market forces and were we now resorting to sensationalism to enhance sales?
Several readers felt tricked by the photograph. They said they had been fooled into associating it with happy summer days on the beach with the children. They were subsequently shocked and appalled when they realised what it was in fact illustrating. Two readers asked if the photograph had been "set up". Most assuredly not, they were told.
As a leading article said a few days later, the decision to publish the photograph was not taken lightly. Only after discussion among the senior editorial staff on duty was it decided that the powerful image would convey the reality of the tragedy in a way that words could not.
And, in so doing, it would reinforce the message that water is extremely dangerous at this time of the year when so many children enjoy lakes, rivers and the sea.
A few callers agreed there might have been some justification in publishing the photograph if it saved one life but they doubted it would. The overwhelming impression left by the photograph, they said, would be the insensitivity of The Irish Times in publishing it.
Having looked again at the decision, in light of all the complaints, the newspaper's view remains the same. Such a shocking image in a place of such beauty and tranquillity can only result in greater vigilance. In the words of the editor, the newspaper did not set out to cause hurt and if it did then of course it is regretted, but if the image saves one child's life this summer, it will have been justified.
A postscript to some of the calls referred to the page-five report and another photograph on the tragedy which appeared on the same day. Unfortunately, the page also contained a large advertisement for our own website which showed two happy people swimming in the sea. This was a most unfortunate juxtaposition which, regrettably, was not noticed until it was too late.
Generally, in cases of tragedy, someone will check the advertisements on the page. For instance, in the case of an aircraft crash, an ad for an airline on the same page would be deemed inappropriate. In this case, the advertisement should of course have been moved but, as callers readily accepted, there was no question of showing any disrespect to the bereaved Murphy family.
Following a reference to political correctness in this column last month, we received a further complaint which asked us to publish an apology for a headline that did not meet fully the requirements of political correctness. The headline read: "Down's children `do better' in `normal schools' ". The report referred in every instance to "children with Down's syndrome", which is the phrase the writer felt should have been used in the headline.
The fact is that a headline cannot contain all the words of a normal sentence. The skill of the headline writer lies in using the minimum number of words to reflect accurately the content of the report. In this case, I don't believe they could have done better without making the headline too long and unwieldy and in the process cutting into the space allocated to the report.
In the same column last month, I referred to the acceptability or otherwise of the word "idiot" in a crossword. I took the view that provided the clue reflected its current meaning of "silly ass", there was no reason not to use the word. Those words came back to haunt me. A couple of weeks later, to my acute embarrassment, "idiot" appeared in a crossword with the clue reflecting the old, outdated and unacceptable usage which refers to people with mental disabilities. Quite rightly, several crossword solvers contacted us to voice their concern. I could only apologise and promise that we would try not to let it happen again.
Readers may contact the Readers' Representative's Office by e-mail: readersrep@irish-times.ie or by telephone: (01) 675 8000 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. Outside these times, they may contact the Duty Editor.