The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from Mr Martin McMahon about a podcast published by the Irish Independent in October 2025.
The complainant stated that the podcast breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 3 (Fairness and Honesty) of the Code of Practice.
The podcast, from the Indo Daily series, is an interview with the then Presidential candidate, Ms Heather Humphreys which, it is stated, sets out to “tackle some of her controversial decisions” dating back to her time as a government minister, and to “look at her judgement, her record and her mistakes.”
The complaint is about a brief segment of the podcast, in which the complainant is referred to by name and is described as a campaigner who has been investigating “dubious employment practices”. It is put to Ms Humphreys that Mr McMahon has claimed that as Minister for Social Protection “you could have taken action against RTE for their now well catalogued bogus self-employment of anything up to 700 staff, but that you didn’t.”
The Complaint
On Principle 1, the complainant stated that Ms Humphreys’ response included “serious factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations that require correction.”
He said the former minister stated that a particular unit in her then Department was dealing with the bogus self-employment matter when in fact another unit was responsible. He said that it was false to state as she had that the matter was “subject to an ongoing investigation”. He said Ms Humphreys’ assertion that “RTE weren’t the only people investigated” was misleading and “demonstrably false”.
The complainant also said the former Minister had misrepresented her Department’s duty regarding PRSI, had made a contradictory claim on PRSI enforcement, and had repeated a false claim “to avoid accountability.”
The complainant said that Principle 3.1 had been breached in that facts had not been checked with him before publication and significant information had been omitted, including evidence directly contradicting the claims that were broadcast. He said assertions were presented as fact without verification, although such verification was possible. He said the publication had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness in its treatment of him.
He sought the publication of a correction and clarification in the public interest.
The Response
The Irish Independent responded that the podcast was a wide-ranging interview lasting 30 minutes in the run-up to the Presidential election, and that the matter raised by the complainant was one of many covered.
On Principle 1 it noted that it had raised the matter with the Department of Social Protection which responded that it was “engaging pro-actively with RTE on the PRSI classification of approximately 600 of RTE’s contractors” and that “around 500” had been “finalised to date.” The publication concluded that “the investigation is therefore ongoing” and that this was the material point. It said that the “precise unit” carrying out the investigation was not material. It said it was satisfied with the accuracy of the former minister’s statement that other companies also faced investigation on these issues.
The publication said that the complaint under Principle 3 was “baseless”. It said that in an interview with an election candidate in which the complainant’s view was “(uncontroversially) published” there was no requirement to contact them. It said it was obvious that “not every topic will be covered ad-nauseam.” It said the segment “fairly and accurately records Mr McMahon’s allegation and Ms Humphreys response.”
Decision
The Press Ombudsman notes that the complainant provided some background material which she reviewed but did not find to be relevant to the Code of Practice.
This interview must be considered in the context in which it was published. A Presidential candidate was required to deal as in a face-to-face live broadcast with a series of questions about her handling of controversies from her career. The podcast lasted for half an hour – the segment at issue lasted just over a minute.
Inevitably, this led to a certain superficiality. The issue of bogus self-employment at the national broadcaster is a serious one, as is the allegation attributed to the complainant and put to the interviewee. The publication was not armed with a series of informed follow-up questions with which to challenge or probe the interviewee in pursuit of the truth. The issue at the heart of this complaint had already been subjected to far more serious scrutiny elsewhere– and the podcast noted Mr McMahon’s ongoing contribution in that regard. The segment ended with the publication noting that the matter would likely come up again.
This was not a piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism. The publication instead used the podcast format to confront the interviewee with questions delivered at a fast pace in a style that left it to the listener to form their own opinion of her judgement, record, and mistakes - and her willingness to reflect critically on her past decisions.
Principle 1 requires publications to strive for truth and accuracy and to correct significant inaccuracies and misleading statements. The complainant disputed the former minister’s claim that the investigation was ongoing. After providing complex details as to what he saw as the actual status of the investigation, he concluded that the “core” work has been completed and liability accepted “for the majority of cases”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the responses given by the interviewee raised questions which were not pursued by the publication. However, given the broad strokes context of the podcast and the brevity of this segment she finds that the publication was entitled to rely on the statement it obtained from the Department to state that what the interviewee said was accurate and did not require correction.
The Press Ombudsman finds that she has insufficient information to determine the relevance or veracity of the interviewee’s claim that other companies were also being investigated. She finds that the misuse of certain words by the interviewee was probably a matter of grammatical error, and that the misnaming of the unit that carried out the investigation is not material.
The Press Ombudsman takes the view that to a significant extent it is left open to listeners to decide whether or not the allegation put to the interviewee has been refuted, and to assess the candour or evasiveness of the answers given. She finds that Principle 1 was not breached.
On Principle 3, the Press Ombudsman finds that there was no editorial requirement to contact the complainant in advance of publication. The complainant does not dispute that he made the allegation which was put to the interviewee, and it is appropriately attributed to him.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the publication introduced the complainant as a person with expertise on the subject, someone who has “plugged away”, including participating in hearings of Oireachtas committees. The allegation made by him and put to the interviewee, is framed as having authority. The Press Ombudsman finds that he was treated fairly and that there was no breach of Principle 3.
The decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.