I was referring to freedom of the media and I was saying, and am saying, that this amendment is selective. It seeks to permit unfair comment in one direction and to stifle it in another direction. This being so, the proposition is, to my mind, that the framers of this amendment are seeking preferential treatment for one section of the community as against another. I do not think that any Parliament should subscribe to that aim because, if it did, it would be bad law, bad practice, and it would end in discrediting our laws, in discrediting those who administer our laws, and it would discredit the framers of the law and the initiators of the law.
Those of us who have had some little experience even of reading cases arising from the law of libel, for example, know very well that, as in politics, it is very hard to gain unanimity, shall we say, on any given point. We also know that no Government, whether it be a socialist Government or whatever system it may be founded upon, other than an outright dictatorship, can curb the media today. We have ample evidence of that.
I want to try to keep to the point of freedom of the media. I was referring to some of the issues which emerged in relation to complaints with regard to some programmes on TV. Some of those complaints were well-founded. The editors of some of those programmes were in the scoop business and, that being so, they were always anxious to present the best image they could to their captive audience. We know, for example, if we advert for a moment to the inquiry which was held into the "7 Days" programme, that information on the subject of moneylending which was gathered in one small area was subsequently used to present the picture that what was happening in that small area was happening on a widespread scale. We also know that some of the arguments used to push forward that programme were grossly exaggerated and calculated to present a false picture and a distorted pattern of the whole subject under review.
There is an obligation on the people presenting those programmes to present both sides of the case and to do so in such a manner that they will be seen to be representative of each side of the case. In a similar fashion the debate on these various amendments is being used to try to brainwash the public into the belief that the Government are doing something inimical to freedom. This is not so and this has been proved time and again not merely here but elsewhere as well.
When Deputy Fitzpatrick referred at the outset to the work of the Press and to the place it should occupy in the affairs of the country in general, I thought he blew the proposition too high altogether. He talked about newspapers defending freedom. But they did not always defend freedom and I want to put that proposition now to Deputy Fitzpatrick. Newspapers in this country did not defend our freedom from 1914 to 1921. We had not so many friends in the newspaper world then. How many of the editors of those days could come in here today and show their files here on the floor of the House? How much of the media had we behind us then? I was not abroad then. I regret this in a way, but I have read a little history about the period and I have gathered from my experience since that very few papers in circulation then supported the aim of freedom in full. They might have supported it in a limited way, but they did not go the whole way. Therefore, when Deputy Fitzpatrick seeks to put the power of the Press above Parliament, I would say to him that he must be careful because, after all, there is a limiting factor on Parliament which is not present in the Press, other than the law of libel, of course. But there is a limiting factor on Parliament and the naked fact is that every Deputy here has to face the electorate. This is why I say in this context that the best curb on the media is the readership of the Press and the captive audience of TV and radio. It is my proposition that, if one has a sufficiently well informed public or captive audience, then the public or the audience will be able to assess the worth of comment either in the Press or on TV. Unfortunately, that is not always the case and, in the nature of the news media, there are many reasons why there should be at least some slight limitation on the scope available as to the sources of information. No one will object, either here or outside, to fair comment, certainly no one who is sufficiently informed, but when one gets facts presented in an unfair way in an attempt to brainwash some section of the community, then one is justly entitled to reject an unlimited scope in this direction.
I think it was H.G. Wells who said that the path of social advancement is and must be strewn with broken friendships. This sometimes occurs in politics because in social advancement, in my opinion, and in the dissemination of information one must be reasonably scrupulous to see to it that the information presented does not distort the real facts. It is my submission that the movers of these amendments are leaving no stone unturned or, as George Bernard Shaw said, no turn unstoned in their efforts to press home these amendments and, in pressing them home, trying to put abroad that we are out deliberately to destroy the power of the Press.
I also submit that we have indulged in this debate in widespread, high-sounding references to the Press, some quite specious, and some calculated to curry favour with this media. Why should we give a damn about what any newspaper thinks of our comments? Our aim is to subscribe to freedom and to be able to calculate how far it is safe in certain circumstances, in dealing with State secrets, to entrust those secrets either to politicians or to the Press. It has happened in the past that a leading politician gave away State secrets innocently and that subsequently became the subject of what amounted to a national debate. The man was only human to start with; he did not at the time know that he was giving away this information and he quite possibly in the heat of debate failed to exercise all the care that he should. The same could go, for example, for a newspaper editor or for the editor of a programme on TV. The same rule should apply in all cases. If a rule applies to me outside Parliament then the same should apply to a newspaper editor. I challenge Deputy Fitzpatrick's opposition and I think I would be able to show that his idea is wrong and that if he prefers the media to Parliament he is wrong and he would not be able to sustain his arguments either in this House or in open debate outside it. If I had a researcher available to me I would, I think, be able to show him this. Do not forget that this is not the first Bill dealing with the media. This is not the first debate in which all the arguments about freedom of the Press were trotted out. We know it is a favourite subject of politicians to talk about the freedom of the Press and the dangers of encroaching on the freedom of the Press but if I had a researcher and the necessary references available to me I could quarry up enough material to show that there is as much of a desire among newspaper editors as among politicians, in certain circumstances, to indulge in the scoop business. What is sometimes sensational will push every other headline off the paper. Everyone knows that if I stood up in the course of the debate and called some fellow a heinous name I would get the headlines the following day. On the other hand, if I made a sensible proposition I might not get one line. We are living in an age of brashness. I do not think Deputies can get away from that.
