Complaint
The complainant, a non-residential father who pays maintenance for his children, complained that an article in the Irish Examiner on 7 April 2008, headlined “Only 1 in 6 Absent Parents Pays Maintenance”, and that used the phrase “dead-beat dads”, was in breach of Principle 8 of the Code of Practice (Incitement to Hatred) by inciting hatred towards persons like him on the grounds of their gender and marital status. He quoted from a previous decision of the Press Ombudsman, made on 14 May 2008, which stated that if the term ‘dead-beat dads’ “was used to describe all non-residential male parents without differentiation it would present a much more substantial issue” and maintained that the article under complaint used the term without such differentiation.
The newspaper responded that as it had published two letters from the complainant following the publication of the article expressing various points of views on these issues, he had had an adequate opportunity to air his views and provide a reasonable statement of explanation or contradiction to the article. Although it did not accept that the article had been in breach of the Code, it offered to include a reminder, when its style book was issued shortly, that pejorative terms such as this should be used with precision, and with an explanatory line, when they are deployed by journalists.
Decision
In stating that “The Department of Social Affairs chased after 11,528 absent parents last year – mostly fathers, often referred to as ‘dead-beat dads’” the article implied that all non-residential male parents, without differentiation, could be described as ‘dead-beat dads’. While this may present a more substantial issue than the use of the phrase in the previous case mentioned by the complainant, it differs from the earlier case in that the newspaper (1) accepted and published two letters from the complainant after the article was published, one of which directly referred to the article in question and (2) in response to the complaint itself, subsequently undertook to publish an appropriate reminder in its forthcoming style book that pejorative terms such as this must be used with precision, and with an explanatory line, when deployed by journalists. In clarifying this commitment to the Office of the Press Ombudsman, it also undertook to immediately circulate to all reporters and sub-editors, in advance of the completion of the style book, a memo highlighting the need for caution when using terms that could be considered to be pejorative. Newspapers frequently publish material which causes offence, and in this case any offence caused by the mis-application of the phrase “dead-beat dads” in the article concerned was not of sufficient gravity to amount to a breach of Principle 8. The complaint is not upheld.
While no action is therefore required under the Code of Practice, the newspaper’s undertaking in response to the complaint is recommended to the attention of member publications.
