A column written by the editor of Ireland's largest-selling newspaper was changed between editions after objections by her bosses.

The presses of the Sunday Independent were stopped on Saturday evening (19 July), reported yesterday's Sunday Times in Ireland, in order to amend an article by Anne Harris.

The changes involved specific references to Denis O'Brien, the major shareholder of the paper's publishing company, Independent News & Media (INM).

But copies of Harris's original column did make it on to the street and the differences between the two versions were spotted by Gavin Sheridan, who pictured them and then posted them here on thestory.ie website.

Version one - Harris wrote: "Denis O'Brien is the majority shareholder in INM. In theory, with 29% of the shares, he does not control it. In practice, he does."

Version two - the phrase "In practice, he does" was deleted.

The next paragraph was also changed...

Version one - Harris wrote: "The question is whether he understands newspapers. In order to confront the truths in our society, we must have a free press. With the restrictive charter for journalists proposed last year, and some garrotive (sic) new structures, Denis O'Brien does not make this easy."

Version two - "The question is whether he understands newspapers. In order to confront the truths in our society, we must have a free press. If the restrictive charter for journalists proposed last year, along with some other structural changes, are anything to go by, it might be instructive for him to listen to journalists, troublesome and all as they are."

According to the Sunday Times, the order to stop the presses was made by Stephen Rae, group editor of INM's titles, a decision which led to "a heated discussion in the newsroom".

Harris's column, "Lies won't compromise the Sunday Independent" (version two), was a response to an article about her in Phoenix (Ireland's Private Eye-like satirical magazine).

It claimed that she was leaving the Sunday Independent in October and had negotiated a generous leaving package, a key part of which involved her agreeing not to publish articles about O'Brien.

Harris regarded that claim - which implied she had been "bought" - as defamatory. Hence her article, in which she did mention O'Brien.

While the enforced changes did not undermine Harris's personal stance, they did prove that press freedom is indeed circumscribed in her newspaper. Well done, Stephen Rae.