Media website ink.com has called on police union Isotita to explain who exactly has been “paying” the site to post information as the trade union had claimed, otherwise the case will take its legal course.

Isotita had said an “anonymous article” had appeared on Ink under the title “Isotita trade union and Caesar’s wife” and claimed that the article was published “for a fee, obviously”.

“This had been preceded by a heated telephone call from the union’s president to a journalist from the media outlet, with references to a libel lawsuit,” Ink said.

It added that Isotita then took legal action against publisher Digital Tree for five related articles.

Ink dismissed the allegations of bribery and gave the union 48 hours to present evidence.

The management of the media outlet said it stood ready to defend its journalistic research and had already informed its legal advisors of the case.

Ink said the series of articles were signed by Filiki Eteria, Newsroom and journalist Loizos Antoniou.

It added that the media outlet is part of Digital Tree e-Publishers Ltd, with 196 employees and 50 associates, spanning 14 years of presence in the media sector, thus if an article is not signed, then the publisher, both as an individual and a company, bears the legal responsibility.

Ink fully adopted the articles concerning a member of Isotita and the trade union itself in terms of the facts and the views they contain.

On August 3, between the second and third article, Isotita chairman Prodromos Christofi contacted Loizos Antoniou and threatened a libel lawsuit and demanded yes or no answers.

“Loizos responded calmly, supporting the validity of the source of information, which of course he did not disclose,” Ink said.

Following the telephone call, Isotita posted on Facebook that the Ink article was “a disgrace to journalism” and had been “written for a fee, obviously”.

Ink said the “disgrace” aspect was a matter of opinion, but the accusations about being paid were “another thing altogether”.

“This is not criticism of our journalism. It is not a characterisation of an article. It is a specific allegation that touches upon the professional integrity of a medium and the people working there. To put it simply: bribery. A corrupt medium or a corrupt journalist,” Ink pointed out.

Ink said this was “unfair, unless of course you can prove it”.

“This is exactly why we will not be ignoring this. He now has 48 hours to tell us who. Who paid. Who was paid. How much he paid. And for which article,” Ink added.

If he cannot deliver, then “he must take responsibility for what he published”.

Ink said Isotita also published a long text with its own positions, followed by its legal actions on the five articles.

The outlet said there was a clear difference between the media and trade unions, in that the media can research a story, publish information and express criticism without necessarily anyone responding with pressure, threats and attempts to silence it.

However, the public accusation that Ink is writing for a fee “will not remain unanswered”.

“The 48 hours are counting. You said someone is paying us to write. Now prove it,” Ink concludes in open response to Isotita.