A Man and the Irish Independent

Complaint

The complainant, a non-residential father who pays maintenance for his children, complained that an article in the Irish Independent of 29 February 2008, headlined “Majority of ‘deadbeat dads’ still avoid child payments” was in breach of Principle 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 8 (Incitement to Hatred) of the Code of Practice. In highlighting a number of specific elements of the article, the complainant maintained that the article was sexist in that it painted non-residential fathers in a very bad light but failed to point out any obvious failings among mothers. He maintained that part of the report, referring to the fact that 1,800 non residential fathers could not be identified because the mother was unable or unwilling to give the information (to the Department of Social and Family Affairs) was not based on fact, and that the term ‘deadbeat dads’ would cause grave offence on the basis of marital status to both single and separated fathers who pay maintenance for their children.

The newspaper pointed out that the article was a report of a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of the Oireachtas, one aspect of which related to maintenance payments, and that a number of the statements to which the complainant took exception were made directly by the Secretary General of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It further stated that the article clearly reported concerns expressed during the meeting and that, although the term ‘deadbeat dads’ was not used at the Committee meeting, it was legitimate to use it in the context of its report.

Decision

Accurate reporting of the proceedings of an Oireachtas Committee is not a breach of the Code of Practice. The fact that the complainant maintained that other matters relevant to the debate should have been included in the article (in particular, the issue of welfare fraud by mothers) does not make the reporting of the proceedings inaccurate.

On one reading, the headline might be read as implying that a majority of the 11,000 cases investigated by the Department were of fathers who consciously avoided paying maintenance that they should and could have paid for the upkeep of their children. In that sense, it may have caused offence to some fathers, particularly to those who, because they were social welfare recipients or otherwise of limited means, were not liable for child maintenance payments in any case. However, in the body of the article the phrase ‘deadbeat dads’ was applied primarily to those parents who had been untraceable or whose identity could not be established (3,500 - i.e. a majority of the total of 5,300 cases pursued) and secondly to non-residential male parents who contributed to the support of their children only after action by the Department. Any ambiguity that may have been generated by the headline was adequately clarified in the body of the article.

The phrase ‘deadbeat dads’ is an example of the labeling and stereotyping commonly employed in journalism to dramatise some aspects of complex social situations but its use does not in itself present a breach of the Code. The newspaper’s contention that it is a term used largely in the United States to refer to fathers with adequate means who do not support their children is not contested by the complainant, although he objects to its utilization in Irish journalism. The context in which it was used does not support the complainant’s contention that it includes non-residential male parents who contribute voluntarily to the maintenance of their children. Such parents are not referred to at any point in the article. If it were used to describe all non-residential male parents without differentiation it would present a much more substantial issue.

14 May 2008

The complainant appealed the decision to the Press Council of Ireland