I welcome the Minister of State.
Press Council: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann requests the Government to consider the setting up of a Press Council.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the possibility of setting up a Press Council in Ireland to deal with matters which from time to time come to the notice of the public and to have complaints adjudicated on by a special committee. I call for the setting up of a Press Complaints Commission to adjudicate on the standards and ethics of the Irish media and to allow persons who feel aggrieved by press coverage to have their views aired through an impartial and independent forum. I call for such a move, which would not only help to maintain high standards within the Irish media but would act as a protection for journalists and editors who are conscious of their obligation to inform the public on matters of major interest without compromising the ethics of these professions.
Journalists and editors are under increasing pressure from their superiors and their employers to repeatedly produce exclusive stories and new angles to major issues of the day, often at any cost. As ethics and standards go out the window in the race to increase sales for the various papers for which they are writing, the inevitable victims, the casualties of this media chase, very often find that they have no machinery for correcting errors or redressing the balance other than to go to court. We all know that for the average person in the street, going to court is an extremely costly way of having these inaccuracies corrected. Quite often, banner headlines appear in relation to a report, which is taken by the general public as a statement of fact. But we all know from experience that when we ask for a correction it very often appears somewhere in the newspaper as a apology weeks later when the event is no longer a worthy news item.
It has often been painfully clear to those who work in the media that the present laws in Ireland concerning defamation and other issues relevant to the print and broadcast media are in serious and urgent need of change. In opening this discussion, I compliment the editors and the journalism profession in general in Ireland since the foundation of the state for their magnificent and fair covering of events of every nature, whether political, sporting or any other kind. They have been a leading Press in the world, to say the least of it. I want to be the first on my feet this evening to congratulate those people on the high standards they have maintained in Ireland over a number of years.
Possibly the first newspaper I read was the Westmeath Examiner. The provincial press in particular have been extremely fair and accurate in their reportage over the years of all events and have been very conscious of family values and the balance which is needed in reporting both sides of any event or problem.
We see what is happening in the print media in the UK, in America and what is now fashionable right across Europe. We see the low standard of television programmes — people can receive 22 stations in most parts of Ireland and six stations in the other parts of Ireland — whether it is brutal violence or sex. We see violence and sex in the controversial books which are coming out for Christmas. It is because of all these things that we bring this discussion to the House this evening and ask Members to express their views on these matters.
Since the introduction of national television in 1961 there has been an increase in violence, because people get ideas from the violent scenes on television. Television can be used in a most magnificent way. It has uplifted our people in many ways. There are, for instance, various educational programmes. So there is a plus side to it as well. There are always two sides to every case and to every problem.
As we all know, the Broadcasting Complaints Committee in RTE is controlled and appointed by the Government. It deals with all matters relating to broadcasting in RTE. I would ask the Minister when it is proposed to include local radio under this committee. If someone thinks they have a grievance they can take their complaint almost immediately to the Broadcasting Complaints Committee at RTE and have it acted on very speedily indeed. It may be that the print media would set up their own Press Council to monitor the inaccuracies that can and have occurred such as overstating facts totally out of all proportion to the actual situation.
Recently a High Court case ended very abruptly after three days when the case could not be sustained. But a few months previously one of the parties, who did not even know a complaint was being made against them, read about it in an Irish Sunday paper while in London. If the journalist concerned had checked out the facts on both sides he would have found out very quickly that there was not a shred of factual information in his article.
I could cite countless examples of inaccuracies in the media today. Our journalits and editors maintain the highest standards. It is from that point of view and in an effort to be helpful that we propose to have this discussion on the print media.
I await with interest the Minister's reply.
Mr. Farrell
I second the motion. As Senator Cassidy said, this is a motion to view the possibilities of setting up a Press Council. I was at a conference recently in Northern Ireland at which the media came in for a lot of flak. Those of us in public life do not mind the media taking us to task. They have every right to scrutinise us and judge as on our performance. Where someone in business, politics or in the clergy, but particularly in politics and business, in some way violates the law, in following up the person involved, which they are entitled to do, the media should have some consideration for the person's wife and family. It is wrong for photographers, for example, to photograph someone pulling a blind and closing it again. This is an invasion of the privacy of innocent people just because their father, brother or someone belonging to them does something wrong.
If we do not set up a Press Council perhaps we could consider the appointment of an ombudsman. We welcomed the appointment of an ombudsman in relation to insurance companies. I remember a case in the Donegal area where a very hard-working public official was abused by the media. He has to take early retirement and he lost a lot. A colleague of his was abused in the same way by the media but he took them to the High Court and he got something like £100,000 in compensation. A poor person who does not have the money to challenge the media cannot do anything. Admittedly the media, by and large, do a good job but there are times when they do wrong. It is only the wealthy who can afford to take them to court.
Very often we see cases where somebody is accused of something and before the court case comes up, there is an article in the newspaper not mentioning names but giving enough information so that everyone in the locality knows exactly who they are talking about, yet when the court case comes up these people are often completely exonerated. In such cases, there should be a complaints procedure. I know the media have a PR officer and they advertise it in all the newspapers. I looked at the correction's in yesterday evening's newspaper. The person's name and telephone number, etc. is given first and under that they have the correction which means that unless one reads it all one would not see the correction. Very often the original story is blown up on the front page but one has to look for an apology or correction.
The media sets itself up as the watchdog and that is right. We do not quibble with that but who watches the watchdog? Are they to be lords and masters with no one to check them other than when people take legal action against them? Many cannot afford to do that. I believe from speaking to a number of those in the media that they would welcome the setting up of a Press Council. There is a watchdog in every other profession — solicitors, accountants, auctioneers, etc. Daniel O'Connell said "The pen is mightier than the sword". When something is written in a newspaper, even though it is corrected afterwards, the original article is what is read and remembered.
The media are an important part of society. Thank God, they have not dropped their standards to the level of those in England but in this materialistic age when there is so much pressure on journalists to print questionable material in order to keep sales up, and with so many papers going to the wall, standards could drop to those levels.
Another area where I felt very hurt was in relation to a bad accident in Sligo Hospital. There was a shooting tragedy there and photographers were up on the hill at the back of the hospital with telescopic lens. The curtains had to remain pulled because they were trying to photograph people in their hospital beds. Where does all this end? Is it fair or just either to the medical profession or the nurses who were attending the patient to photograph them in this way? I also think that photographing people, very often relatives, grieving in a graveyard is wrong. They should have some protection and the media should not highlight people in their private lives who may find themselves entangled in a situation not of their making. It is for those reasons that I believe we should have a mechanism along the lines of an ombudsman or a Press Council.
People in all walks of life are worried about litigation because they do not know where or when they will have to appear before the courts. There should be some means of settling problems besides having to go to court. Admittedly there may only be an occasional case but that person who is victimised and injured should have some form of redress other than going to court.
While I accept that the media do quite a good job, we can all instance cases where we know injustices were done and where items appeared in newspapers that were not entirely correct. They were corrected afterwards and apologies were made in the newspaper but there should be a more positive way of correcting such errors. It is with that in mind that I believe should set up a Press Council or ombudsman. It is wealthy people who take the media to court. I have given an example of one very honourable official who was wrongfully pushed out of this job by the media but he just did not have the money to take them to court. His colleague had the means and received about £100,000. In cases like that we should have some redress. I do not think the media should be annoyed about it. It could act as a safeguard for the media and complaints could be dealt with quietly and everyone would feel they were getting justice and fair play.
I thank Fianna Fáil Senators for putting down this motion. It is worthwhile that we have a discussion this evening on an issue like this. In a funny way, it is strange that, given the interaction between the Press and politics, we do not discuss the relationship more often and more openly; maybe then some of the misunderstandings might disappear.
I must declare an interest: the first gainful employment, apart from delivering messages, from which I ever made money was as a reporter for the Carlow Nationalist at the age of 13 when the local Bagenalstown correspondent went away for his two weeks holiday and I was in charge of Bagenalstown notes at ten shillings a week. The reporter was not a man of great energy. He told me my main work would be weddings and funerals. I did not have to go to either he said, I would gather information around the place but, he said, for a funeral, the formula that never failed was when describing the funeral to say that the extent of the cortége which accompanied the remains of the deceased from St. Andrew's Church to the local graveyard was ample evidence of the esteem with which the deceased was held by all classes and creeds in the locality. He said with that you could not go wrong and I did not during my short tenure.
Newspapers are part of our lives. Senators want to establish a Press Council; there are very serious problems which affect both newspapers and politicians. I hope this is the beginning of a discussion about these problems because we have talked at each other and about each other rather than to each other. I am not sure that a Press Council is necessarily the answer. I would like to see what it would do spelled out in greater detail. What powers would it have? There are questions of intrusiveness and invasion of privacy which both Senators have highlighted; these are causes of concern not just to the public and politicians but to a great number of people in the media itself.
There is something obscene about people in a moment of tragedy being doorstepped and asked for a reaction, being crowded at funerals, etc., by a section of the media. Maybe that happens because it is part of the terrible competitiveness within the media but that is something the media and the public would like to have considered.
Recently the National Newspapers of Ireland made a submission to the Minister for Communications on the problems within the newspaper industry. I have no doubt that there are serious problems of survival within the newspaper industry at present. A number of newspapers may not survive, may not be here in two or three years time, unless serious changes in policy are made. I found this document, a copy of which I think all Members received, very reasonable. I would have very little difficulty with their comments on VAT on the price of newspapers and tax on newspapers. I feel that the freedom of the Press and libel need to be tackled urgently as well as the question of unfair competition with RTÉ. These are areas where newspapers have a legitimate case to make. Most Members would like to see the newspaper media getting a fair crack of the whip on these issues.
A number of points come to my mind. Senators have spoken about the absence of proper redress for honest mistakes, careless reporting or even a little more. Going to court is like arming a traffic warden with nuclear weapons or a submachine gun — there is no connection between what one is trying to achieve and the steps one must take to achieve it. People in public life often feel aggrieved. I had reason recently to feel aggrieved, as had others, where the law was broken in the pursuit of a story and I am certain my constitutional rights to privacy were invaded. When one wants redress one can go to court. This takes a long time and one is seen to be chasing after money when all one wants is a forum where the facts can be established and there is redress if one is right, or it is established if one is wrong.
I think Senator Farrell's idea of a press ombudsman is worth pursuing but the ombudsman would need to be independent, established by statute and must have some way of ensuring that his or her findings will be implemented. This has not been thought through. In other countries, newspapers have their own internal ombudsman.
I would not deny that in recent years newspapers have made great efforts to ensure that if they make a genuine mistake it can be rectified fairly quickly. I know from research that the newspapers have carried out that policy and the corrections and clarifications columns are read as much as any other part of the newspaper. Most newspapers will want to remedy a mistake they have made. I say "most" because most newspapers are responsible. Unfortunately it is the newspapers which engage in personal or political vendettas, which have their own hidden agenda, or which are not upfront, which bring the entire industry into disrepute and make it very difficult to find a mechanism which would apply to all in a fair way.
Our libel laws are a mess. We have on our desks the report of the Law Reform Commission. This Government should try to implement, or at least have debated, the main findings of the Law Reform Commission on the laws of libel. We have all seen disproportionate and crazy amounts awarded in relatively inconsequential cases. If there were a mechanism which would protect the Press as much as the public, where genuine, legitimate complaints could be disposed of in a way which would be satisfactory to both sides, with binding force, without costs, without people being accused of rushing after money, many of the present problems would disappear and the cloud which hangs over newspapers of possible libel action being taken would disappear.
However, there are questions that newspapers must ask themselves. When they produce a very good document — and they have done — why is there is so little support for them among politicians? There is no great head of steam I can detect among colleagues out of sympathy for the newspapers to implement the main part of this policy. It is partly because the newspapers, ironically, whose job is communication are damn bad at getting their own point of view across. They are not used to working with each other. The name of their game is competition. They have not succeeded in getting across a coherent set of objectives they would like to achieve and want done through law. They are very bad at lobbying politicians and at educating the public on this issue. However, that is their problem and we cannot resolve it for them. Just throwing a document at us once every two or three years and then expecting us to rush in and support it is simply not enough. They should be initiating a debate with politicians on the real issues. Why they have not done it is a question they must ask themselves and it is a problem they must face.
Part of the problem is a point mentioned by the two Senators who have spoken. We and the public would like the media to be more open about their own operations. By and large newspapers do not explain the basis upon which policy is determined or the sort of values underlying policy. The public are not always aware if a newspaper has a hidden agenda. We do not know if they are upfront with their views. Frequently, in all our minds, there can be suspicions about certain newspapers. Senator Dardis and I would have a particular view on the bona fides and agenda of one Sunday newspaper — I will not name it. If newspapers could be more open about what they are at, at least the public and politicians would be able to judge them on the standards they expect from us. That is the important point to make. There is also the question of how they handle mistakes. All of that needs to be looked at.
The natural relationship between a politician and a journalist or the media should be one of tension; it should not be a cosy relationship. Any politician who believes that the media, or a journalist, will do him a favour is a fool. It is right that it should be so. We both look at the same questions and the same problems, but we look at them from different perspectives. Long may that be the case, so long as we know that those who are asking us to be open, to declare our interests. To be scrupulously fair in dealing with people's reputations and with issues, apply the same standard to themselves and that these same standards are seen to apply. I believe we can ask for no more than that. The objective of a debate on that basis will not be to fetter the Press.
All of us thrive and live by the Press. We enjoy the Press. A strong healthy competitive Press is the most essential part of any democratic process. We all have a vested interest in seeing such a Press, in seeing that there is a fair play of ideas. You and I and the person out on the soapbox on the street corner can say what we think and there is a fair chance of our views being reported as they are expressed, not in some distorted way. I would like to see the debate starting on that.
Maybe I should mention the sort of——
An Leas-Chathoirleach
The Senator has very little time left. His time is up, actually.
Perhaps the Senator had better sit down before he says what he has to say, for his own sake.
I was struck recently by the lack of self-awareness and self-consciousness that one sometimes finds among media people. There was a controversy in The Irish Times where one journalist attacked the National Union of Journalists for this, he was — maybe rightly, maybe wrongly; it is none of my business — roundly attacked by three other journalists in the same paper. But in the same letter they said it was the job of the journalist to lambaste institutions, to hold them up to search and scrutiny three paragraphs down, they attacked their own colleague. They said you do not bite the hand that feeds you. Surely there are double standards there.
I would like journalists to face up to these things, because in some ways I am sick and tired of being lectured to by journalists. I would like the playing field to be even. I have outlined the sort of principles that should operate. I would love to see a real debate beginning on this. It is up to the media, because they are the people who want the changes, to initiate this debate. I hope that tonight is a start.
At the outset I should declare a vested interest in this debate. For more than 20 years I have been a practising journalist, albeit not in the forefront of controversy. I do not think anybody could claim that the sex life of wheat or barley is quite as interesting as the sex life of David Mellor.
How about rape-seed?
Even the rape-seed, perish the thought.
I would say, in defence of the Press, that I believe it is an essential element of a free society. It is impossible for society to operate freely and openly within a democracy without the monitoring of a free Press. We all know of very painful examples in history where the priority of regimes, in the promotion and establishment of their own narrow view of life, was to remove the element of balance which the Press contributes to society. We all know of cases in Nazi times, of how they abused the media and how the free Press was forced underground and eliminated. More recent examples come to mind in South Africa, where there was a degree of regulation of the Press. In that sense I am not in favour of regulating the activities of the Press in the way in which they impinge upon the workings of Government, of the Oireachtas and of this Legislature.
As a group, we depend very heavily on the Press. Without the Press we are nothing. It could be very difficult for us to operate in such a vacuum. The people who sit in these benches from day to day do a very good job. They always represent our views fairly. We might not always agree with the elements which they choose to report but I do not think we could complain about the general balance of what is reported. If at times they can be critical or even mocking of the way we conduct ourselves, I would submit that that is our fault rather than theirs.
I would share the views expressed by Senator Farrell in relation to intrusions into purely private matters. There has been a very sad decline in standards in recent years in that respect. Perhaps it has been motivated by the commercial realities of trying to compete with the lurid British tabloid press. It could be submitted that it is really the market place which decides and that these people are doing more than catering for a particular section of the marketplace; but there have been totally unacceptable invasions of privacy, into matters which are entirely domestic concerns to the people involved and which are not of public interest. It was always part of the ethics of the business that one would not intrude into grief and private matters. One of the most objectionable aspects of this, as Senator Farrell has already mentioned, is close up photographs of mourners at funerals. I can recall a period when such pictures would not have been published in the national press. It is not acceptable, even in the case of public figures, that mourners at funerals should be subjected to that sort of invasion of privacy, even if a telephoto lens has been used and the journalist was not actually poking a camera in the people's faces. It is still not acceptable to publish such pictures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a good press and how it should behave itself.
The question of balance arises in the press. I have a friend who remarked to me that he thought one particular national newspaper was a very well balanced newspaper, much more so than any of the other newspapers. The fact of the matter was that it more accurately reflected his views than any of the other papers did. That is what he meant by balance. In general terms the national media and our local Press get the balance right most of the time. They must continue to have the right to investigate matters which are of public interest and which impinge on how we conduct ourselves as a democracy.
Senator Manning has made reference to the reports of the Law Reform Commission and I have also looked at those relating to the crime of libel and the civil law of defamation. I would agree that there are recommendations in those reports which merit fairly serious consideration and which should be examined in more detail.
We depend on the media in this House; it is an essential part of a free democracy. On the margins of what is acceptable, we must ask if the type of conduct we have seen in the British tabloid press over recent months is acceptable, even in the case of public figures? My belief is that it is not. I do not think it is correct for people to crawl through the undergrowth for hours with telephoto lenses which can show a pimple on somebody's face from 200 yards and to use such technology to gain a scope. That technology is quite recent in its origin and it is now being abused just to get a story. It has been suggested that there are lawyers who actually trawl the newspapers every day to try to find something that is, in their view, actionable. I do not know to what degree that practice exists but it is the other side of the coin and in my view is not acceptable conduct.
We have a responsible Press and in general they conduct themselves well. There are ethics in the business. I can recall colleagues who were excellent examples of always behaving in an ethical fashion. I can think of the late Michael Dillon as one, in particular, who was an example of how a journalist should always conduct himself, in a balanced, caring and open manner.
We have had plenty of examples of a sanctimonious Press lecturing public representatives as to how they should behave themselves, but they are not so open when it comes to retaliation, when some of their own sanctimoniousness is thrown back in their face.
A free and unfettered Press is central to our democracy and anything other than a free Press would make one concerned about the future of democracy. There is some need for regulation of the Press. Whether or not that should be statutory, I do not know. I would prefer to see a self-regulatory body established by the Press, which would investigate complaints in a transparent and open way. I am not convinced that the Press Council should be statutory. But should such a body be established on a voluntary and internal basis and should it fail to carry out its job as it should, in the view of the Houses of the Oireachtas, I would have no objection to a statutory role for the Oireachtas and statutory regulation of the Press. That is a very dangerous area to get into, however. It is a very short step from there to actual censorship of the Press. Censorship has been used, as we all know, by regimes for their own ends. Censorship of the Press, in my view, is not acceptable, however undesirable some of the activities of the Press may be.
I must apologise, straight away, for the absence of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications from the debate here tonight as she is indisposed. Let me say at the outset, that the Minister has no statutory responsibility whatsoever in relation to the Press and my speaking on this motion should not be seen as an expression of intent or aspiration to have such responsibility vested in the Minister. However, the debate is a timely discussion of the issues involved and I think should also take account of what is happening in the electronic media as well.
As a starting point, it is worth attempting to put the place of the Irish print media, and particularly newspapers in Irish society into some sort of focus. First, newspaper publication in this State has traditionally been a private enterprise activity, free from direct or indirect Government interference other than compliance with the law of the land. The Irish are avid readers. Over 90 per cent of the population read daily and Sunday newspapers. The ratio of daily titles per head of population is far higher than in the UK. Indeed, by UK standards, instead of having five national morning titles we probably should have no more than one. The plurality of newspaper titles in Ireland is very healthy to democracy, and long may this continue to be the case. Irish newspapers, national, provincial and local, have played a pivotal role in delivering information and analysis to our citizens and they can rightly claim their share of credit, together with our excellent broadcasting services, for the political sophistication of the Irish community in general.
However we live in an open society and we are not confined to Irish media, either print or electronic, for education, information and entertainment. Four UK terrestrial television services, an ever increasing number of satellite services, and many UK radio services are widely available. This availability is continually being extended, as a conscious Government policy, through the development of cable and MMDS. In the print media, UK newspapers account for about one in six daily newspapers sold here, while one in three Sunday newspapers sold here is from the UK.
Against this background the need for and the effectiveness of a Press Council concerned only with standards in Irish newspapers — and that is all it could concern itself with — has to be coldly evaluated. Also there is the need to look at the experience of the operation of such bodies elsewhere to see how effective they have been in maintaining and raising acceptable standards in the medium. Our neighbours across the water have had considerable difficulty in securing acceptance by editors of Press Council findings and indeed the council's usefulness is being increasingly questioned. There is a view that a statutory body could serve little useful purpose unless it has statutory powers to impose sanctions on offending editors. Such an arrangement could have the highly undesirable effect of stifling good investigative journalism on which our democracy depends in part and it would be difficult if not impossible to apply those standards to imported newspapers. I do not believe that a statutory body with heavy handed powers is what is required to day, indeed if anything is required.
Reading newspapers occupies, for some, a considerable proportion of our early business day and for others a considerable proportion of leisure time. The mass media provide us with a significant part of our picture of social reality. In effect, the mass media can structure reality into user friendly and easily digestible chunks. From their introduction until very recent times, with the advent of radio and television, newspapers were quickly and comprehensively available to a mass readership. Despite the power of the electronic media, newspapers remain invaluable contributors to the information arena and their production is now a technology driven, market-led industry.
I read with great interest recently a report on 100 years of change in the newspaper industry and was amazed to discover that in 1880 it took three hours to handset one column of newspaper text. By 1900 it took 35 minutes to lineset the same column and as recently as the 1960s it would take 20 minutes. Now it takes two minutes to set a full page.
The competition within the industry from other newspapers and without from the electronic media has sharpened the focus of newspapers; and the greater immediacy of newspaper stories. Indeed, a newspaper which now fails to carry a late breaking story is uncommon and we have come a long way from the blank spaces denoted "late news". In parallel with the improved immediacy brought about by new technologies, the print media has crucially retained its position as a important provider of opinion and interpretation of newsworthy developments.
With modern newspaper technology and so much direct VDU input into papers, the onus on newspaper editors and proprietors to ensure that the pillars of impartiality, balance, respect for privacy, decency and aesthetic decorum are respected and maintained is greater than ever. The increasing competitiveness within the newspaper industry and the race with radio and television understandably led to all-consuming market share tussles. Competition is healthy but can be sometimes myopic in that hitherto respectable and respected standards are discarded — sometimes unknowingly — and lesser standards become the norm. Senators Farrell, Manning and Dardis referred to invasions of privacy etc., but that will always happen because there will always be over-zealous reporters or photographers.
I am glad to say that, by and large, the Press in Ireland has let the poisoned chalice of garbage-bin press pass it by. The level of taste which some of its counterparts abroad have fallen to is quite appalling, with the gross intrusion into the private lives of public figures and their grand posturing over decaying social standards. I am all for the freedom of the Press — a plurality of points of view is a central tenet of a modern pluralist society. With freedom comes responsibility and with being a public institution, such as is the Press, follows an unequivocal responsibility to the public good.
Why then, if the Irish print media have not sunk to the levels of the gutter press in other countries, do we need a Press Council? Given that the industry has shown a commendable degree of responsibility in the face of severe temptation, I do not agree that the initiative in this regard should come from Government. The Government in any democracy should be at a very clear and unambiguous remove from the Press and that is something that Irish Government of all hues and creeds have been very conscious of.
If there is to be a Press Council the initiative in this regard should come from the industry itself — a clear case of allowing a free industry demonstrate the maturity to set its own house in order if needs be. Senator Cassidy referred to this. Furthermore, the industry should consider if the initiative should come now and not be precipitated by absolute necessity. The thought processes should be set in motion now, the groundwork completed and if necessary the relevant structures put in place. Prevention is easy on the palate and the pocket and is always the best cure.
Coming from the industry, the Press Council could of course be much more than a watchdog; it could be a shepherd guiding and focusing the industry. There is no reason why its founding character could not focus on more than journalist and editorial standards. It could also serve as an umbrella body for the whole industry whose policy — akin to Government policy in relation to domestic broadcasting services — is to ensure that domestic newspapers remain the mainstream choice of Irish readers.
Indeed the question of media concentration — that is the conglomeration of various print and electronic media under a single control — is an increasing phenomenon and is a matter which is rightly causing some concern at an internatinal level. While it is accepted that concentrations can be beneficial to the development of the media, there may be a danger of negative consequences to freedom of information and pluralism of opinions and, where such concentrations span frontiers, to social diversity. A voluntary Press Council could, if properly structured, be a valuable source of suggestions and opinions and a guarantor of the independence of the Press if at any stage it is considered necessary to regulate this area.
In an international context, where we are inundated with broadcasting services in particular from other countries and cultures, no individual state can exercise effective control over the numerous external television signals entering its territory. The only effective way to deal with the matter has been through concerted international action in the form of international legal instruments. The need for concerted international action has been recognised throughout Europe and has led to the preparation of the Council of Europe's convention on Transfrontier Television and the EC's Directive on Broadcasting Activities. These instruments have two interdependent objectives: to promote the free flow of broadcasts across frontiers, and to ensure that, in return for allowing such free flow, certain standards in important aspects of broadcasting are met. The provisions of these instruments deal with a variety of important topics including respect for human dignity and rights, pornography and violence, the protection of the moral and physical development of children and incitement to hatred.
Of interest also in the EC Directive is the right of reply provision contained in Article 23 which provides that any natural or legal person, regardless of nationality, whose legitimate interests, in particular reputation and good name, have been damaged by an assertion of incorrect facts in a television programme, must have a right to reply or equivalent remedies. A Press Council could usefully consider basic standards which might be expected from transfrontier publications.
Finally, no legal or voluntary system can guarantee that material which may be offensive to some people will not be carried on broadcast or print services. Ultimately, responsibility for what is watched or read in any home rests with the individual and parents have particular responsibilities in this regard. TV sets have an off switch as well as a channel selection switch which should be used responsibly and newspapers or magazines may or may not be purchased.
To conclude, I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this matter, my non-statutory responsibility for this question notwithstanding. I think that there is a need to look very carefully at what might be achieved by the establishment of a Press Council and in particular to consider the merits of a voluntary effort in this area. It would be unwise to rush in with Government intervention in an area that traditionally has been free of it and to impose structures that might damage the democratic role of the print media.
In conclusion, it would be remiss of me not to avail of this opportunity to commend the Irish media generally and the Press in particular on how, to date, they have in general risen above the temptation to pander to baser instincts and have stuck generally to the high journalistic and Press standards that are indicative of the strong and rich literary heritage of which we are all so proud. Journalists are the keepers of today's annals and must be ever cognisant of the fact that today's news is a bequest and heritage to tomorrow's generation.
I want to remind you, Senator Cosgrave, of a line in the Minister's speech —"external television signals entering its territory". I believe there is something on the television at 7 p.m.
If Senator Upton wishes to speak I understand he would be before Senator Cosgrave. Does Senator Upton give way?
Certainly. I am looking forward with interest to what Senator Cosgrave has to say.
The motion before the House is "That Seanad Éireann requests the Government to consider the setting up a Press Council." Being fair to the proposers of the motion, they are opening up a discussion on the question of regulation or how some better regulatory body might be set in place. As the Minister has said, it may not necessarily be desirable for a statutory body to be set up under by legislation but, for possibly, a body could be set up by the industry itself. Parts of the industry have gone some way in that direction in that, at times, at least in some of the papers, there is a person one can telephone with a query, correction, complaints or comments etc.
I value the work of the Press and the fact that we have in this country a free media, as one who looks at all aspects of it, printed, audio and visual. No doubt I will try as the Cathaoirleach says, to watch the visual one later on.
In relation to the whole media in this country, like a lot of other things, there is room for improvement and for standards. Thankfully, as the Minister has said, we have not descended to the gutter of Fleet Street. While fair comment is to be welcomed and the media have a certain role to play in relation to the reporting of sensitive issues, there must be balance and discretion, particularly where peoples' inner feelings are concerned and in tragedies.
The media must look at themselves, ensure that they get the facts right and that they do not print matters which can do damage to individuals. I am not just referring to politicians, politicians are probably more fair game than other individuals. There must still be a sense of fair play and balance and if they do get it wrong there should be a greater and a more prompt reaction and retraction. Any possible retraction should be in the same manner as the original mistake. Often we see small corrections, five or six months or a year after the event. At that stage the damage has possibly been done to an individual and to try and rectify it at that point is probably too little, too late.
In some libel cases in this country, and probably more particularly across the water, the damages awarded were totally excessive and over the top. Some juries lost the run of themselves and the newspapers felt quite sore. There must be a balance in relation to this. There should possibly be some self-regulating body coming from the media. I am not sure if two bodies would be necessary to cover both the written word and the electronic media.
I think one has to look at the particularly advantageous position of RTE. Obviously, the fact that they have a virtual monopoly in certain areas is causing difficulties to the printed word. We have seen recently that RTE have made mistakes. In the last couple of days we have seen where a trial had to be aborted and RTE had to pay money. We also saw recently that they were in contempt in relation to some tribunal. One wonders have the RTE Authority gone dormant, or exactly who is responsible and who is watching over this. At times RTE are very quick to criticise politicians and others, but when representatives of the same RTE come in here before a committee of the House they are most reticent in relation to saying what any one is paid and in particular whether some of them are paid six figure sums. Politicians and others obviously have to be responsible for their actions and RTE have a certain role to play, but there has to be a balance.
We have seen recently, in relation to the currency crisis and since, a sensationalising of aspects of it, possibly doing a certain amount of damage to the country. The reality is that mortgage holders are now paying more than they did last month. I am not saying RTE are responsible for all of these things, but certainly they have a case to answer. In some programmes dealing with serious issues nameless individuals are brought on as so-called expert witnesses and allowed to give opinions without necessarily ensuring that there is a sense of fair play and a sense of balance.
Headlines are at times erratic and certainly to an extent can be damaging and misleading. But we are very fortunate in this country that we have a free Press which, by and large, does a very reasonable job, but perhaps it is time for some improvements, improvements which would help the industry itself. I am not one for in any way censoring any of their actions. They have a job to do; let them go out there and do it — investigate, bring things to light which might otherwise not have come to light. I think we are lucky to have some very good investigative journalists; but, in relation to this whole question, we have to look at how they perform. There has to be a balance; there has to be fair play.
I would hope that this debate is a start in relation to opening up a discussion of these matters. I am not sure what is the best way. Perhaps, as the Minister said, we should have some sort of a self-regulating body, as some industries have, where if there are complaints against them they are immediately investigated. The newspapers cannot have it both ways. As I have said, some libel awards have been excessive, but on the other hand perhaps some corrections were either too little or too late, particularly where damage was done to the individual. I would hope therefore that we could use this debate as a launching pad to discuss this and other matters. It is a very timely one and I thank the Fianna Fáil Members, and Senator Cassidy in particular, for introducing it. It is a matter that interests us all. We all want to see a well functioning Press and media in this country. I hope that that is what will come out of this and that it will be for the betterment of all the media here.
First, I must welcome the Minister to the House. It is the first time I have spoken on his presence, so it is good to see him here. I imagine he has probably forgotten the old days before he was a Minister. He has been in office now for quite a long period and is well into the job.
The debate is welcome and Senator Cassidy is to be thanked for taking the initiative and raising the subject. It is easy to understand why the subject would be raised in the context of the British experience of the last year or so, where essentially the tabloid press in Britain seem totally to have lost the run of themselves. I suppose in one way it is a reflection on the British people, and indeed on the mentality of the British people, that they are prepared to go for what is essentially a comic about the Royal Family and all that kind of stuff. What more is there to be said and what more can be said about the toings and froings of the Royal Family, beyond it being the ideal stuff to put everybody into some type of deep sleep? But the reality in Britain appears to be that people continue to buy this stuff. When there is some new and even more horrifying shock about whatever one or other of these people have done, the sales apparently increase.
However, for a variety of reasons, I do not think there is any danger of that kind of thing happening in this country. If you are interested in shock and horror and terrible stories about famous people in this country you would be far better off to take yourself into one of the public houses late at night where you will get lots of people sitting on high stools who are prepared to tell you truly horrible stories about the toings and froings of famous people — far better and for more sensational than you could ever hope to read in an Irish newspaper. In that sense I imagine that most Irish people simply do not have a great deal to learn or we do not have a great deal to be worried about in the context of the Irish papers going down that road of sensationalism.
I also think that in this country there is a certain degree of sympathy for anybody who is being pilloried by the Press. There are some notable figures in this country who have been pilloried, or at least see themselves as having been pilloried by the Press over the years. In many ways the devil a bit of harm it seems to have done them anyway. Certainly, the politicians that have been at the receiving end of this seem to have trundled on and on. They have gone their merry way. In many ways the worse the publicity they got going into an election, the bigger the vote they got. In many ways Irish politics and Irish life are somewhat different to Britain in that regard. A lot of the time most Irish people know the politician in question and have long since made up their mind about whether or not this man or woman is a good, honest and honourable person, or whether they are thoroughly evil rascals. If they want to start running checks on it, most of the time they are not going to resort to reading newspapers; they will simply start asking around and they will get the two sides of the story. In that sense, therefore, I do not think there is any particular need for worry.
There will always be occasions when people will be badly treated. Some of the time I think it can happen by accident. It can happen also because of vendettas, disagreements and antagonisms which exist between people in public life and journalists, who of course have an obligation to be fair and objective. Indeed, in the vast bulk of cases that is actually what happens, but you will get that small element who will take out their disagreements on people and perhaps treat them unfairly. I think it is a relatively small problem.
In addition to that, the libel laws in this country can have very far reaching affects for newspapers who go over the mark and get it wrong. Certainly, for small newspapers it is the end of the story — they simply go broke. They will be forced into bankruptcy if they get involved in a libel case which goes badly against them. I understand there is quite a number of newspapers here close enough to the edge. I refer to the smaller newspapers. Those papers are not in a position to take risks. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, I simply do not know. I think you could argue the case both ways.
In relation to the Irish media in general I do not think there is a particular problem. Certainly, you will get the occasional case where things are difficult and problematic and it is important that the whole topic should be raised at this time. I suppose there is also the danger that, as Irish society becomes more urbanised and more impersonal, you are at increasing risk of this kind of thing happening. But certainly in small communities, and indeed generally speaking, most people know the individuals in question. Certainly, in relation to those who are in public life and about whom articles appear in newspapers, my experience is that you will get the story on the ground from people who know an awful lot more than you could ever hope to read in newspapers.
In relation to the whole question of public service broadcasting and so on, that is a matter that is perhaps somewhat outside the scope of the debate. But I want to say in relation to public service broadcasting that nobody has a monopoly of public service broadcasting in this country. Certainly RTE provide their own share of public broadcasting, but I believe that quite a bit of the material that comes from them could not be classified as public service broadcasting. I think it fits into the broad category of commercial broadcasting, which is providing entertainment and not any special public service. There are, of course, the programmes which do fit into that category.
One of the matters we might all begin to think about is: what exactly is public service broadcasting? Where does this begin and where does it end? Certainly, the local radio stations particularly in the country areas, provide quite a bit of very useful public service broadcasting. This cannot be provided by a national station because a national station can never get down to the levels of detail which the local stations can. The local radio stations in this country, broadly speaking, have been a great success in terms of the service they are providing for the public. I understand that many of them are struggling to survive financially. All I can say in relation to that is more is the pity. But I think that on very limited resources they provide a very good service by way of the public service broadcasting. I do not of course, include the music which they play non-stop.
In regard to the Press Council itself and so on, the United Kingdom experience would lead to the conclusion that perhaps it is not particularly effective. Certainly, the Press Council in the United Kingdom does not seem to have any great impact on what happens over there.
The final point I simply want to mention is in relation to the way the electronic media, particularly some elements in RTE, conduct their business. They seem to me to have an overwhelming anxiety for confrontation. I really find it hard to understand why the balance is pushed in the direction of confrontation to the extent it is. In the case of the present debate, and which will be taking place morning, noon and night between now and 3 December, I would hope that the issues could be explained in some type of a calm manner rather than having them pelted around broadcasting studios, where in the green corner and the blue corner you have protagonists who address the whole business as if it were some type of boxing contest. Indeed, there are lessons to be learned in relation to the American system, where we have these "title fights" between President Bush and Governor Clinton. It is a series of three title fights run over 45 minutes of sparring time, where they spar at one another. Indeed, their assistants have a kind of junior match. It is almost like the All-Ireland final, where the minor match proceeds the senior match. The whole thing is conducted in this spirit of confrontation.
I do not dispute that there is a place for that type of stringent argument, but I am also of the view that it is not the whole story. I sometimes wonder if the message which comes out of this is a message derived almost from the appearances of these people. Certainly, there are fairly important questions to be answered. People say that, as a principle of communication, what is important is how you look rather than what you say. If that is the underlying principle, what justification can be put up for much of this type of confrontation when the best that will come out of it is some type of impression based on the appearance of the people rather than what they are actually saying? If the purpose of these programmes is to enlighten and clarify issues, how can that be done by the appearance of a protagonist on one side or the other? I think that in some cases the objective is basically to get audiences, because this business is very competitive. I suppose that is the bottom line.
It is a pity that this has become as confrontational as it now is, this anxiety and bias towards confrontation. I am not saying that it should not happen. Certainly, in the case the Maastricht debate it seemed to me to be the same old story again — people shouting at one another, when I would have hoped that somebody might have been able to explain in fairly simple terms what exactly the pros and cons of those issues were.
I would like to support the establishment of a Press Council and agree with the Minister that it should be under the auspices of and supervised by the Press itself. We require such a council to consider, adjudicate, conciliate and resolve complaints of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy by the Press. It will have an advantage for the Press itself in that it will have face validity in the area of complaints and innuendo which are often made against the Press.
The media has a reputation for high professional standards and has the respect of the public in Ireland and it is important, I believe, that this is maintained. There have been occasions however where it has been seriously damaged, and one has only to recall the Ben Dunne case as an example of this. I believe such a Press Council should ensure that the Press maintains the highest professional standards, respects and defends recognised freedoms, including freedom of expression, the public right to know and the right of the Press to operate without improper pressure from any source.
It is important that a code of practice be supervised by such a Press Council. The code should cover the obligations on newspapers, periodicals, magazines and other areas of the media to be accurate, to publish corrections and apologies, which should be made without admission of liability for defamation, an area I want to touch on later. The code should provide for a fair opportunity to reply to comments, to distinguish comment and conjecture from fact and to respect privacy. It should require journalists to avoid misrepresentation, intimidation and harrassment, as occasionally occurs, and to always identify themselves when making inquiries, whether it is through the telephone or otherwise, and to protect their sources of information. Ninety-nine per cent of journalists will support such an approach. I believe that there should also be a code to deal with Press intrusion into the areas of grief and shock especially and also in regard to interviewing and indeed photographing children or people in sensitive situations, after a sudden death or a tragedy or whatever. I believe that such a code will protect journalism as a profession and should have the support of the profession for its establishment.
I previously referred to the area of defamation. I would now like to just briefly deal with this because I believe it is inhibiting the freedom of the Press. I believe that the present law on defamation is archaic, out of date, and needs legislation to change it. I refer to the Law Reform Commission report on this which was published earlier this year. The balance between the need to preserve the individual's good name and reputation on the one hand and the right of free speech, especially in areas of public interest, on the other hand has moved too much in favour of the individual's situation. I believe that the purpose of the law should be to provide a balance between the individual and the public's right to know, between these two competing forces. It is a prerequisite in an open democracy that the public know what is going on. In recent years there has been a discernable shift away from the public's need to know what is happening towards the individual's rights which stymies the publication of information on important public issues. A debate should take place on this area based on the report of the Law Reform Commission.
I would like to refer to some of the changes that I think should be made. I believe that judges should be in a position to determine the amount of damages to be awarded after a jury has indicated which category, nominal compensation or punitive. The Supreme Court should have a right to assess the damages in the event of appeal and not a jury. The defendants, the Press, should be in a position to make payments into a court without admission of liability. At present, similar to any civil case, the payment of money by a media organ charged with defamation is an admission of liability and this should be changed. If the Press publishes an apology this should not be construed as an admission of liability and should in fact be taken into account in any award of damages — that the Press moved quickly to correct the situation. At present, if they do it, it is construed as an admission of liability. They should be allowed apologise without admitting liability and such an apology should be taken into account when assessing damages afterwards.
A debate has developed around the issues of libel and slander and I believe the distinction should be abolished. I believe also that there should be a provision for defamation of the dead, with a three year limit from the time of publication for an action by a close relative or personal representative of the deceased. It is unfair on family, friends and others that the law of defamation does not apply where the person involved has died. It can be very stressful for the family. This should be changed. There should be a three year period when a representative or member of the family could bring a case if a person who has recently died is defamed.
A discussion should also take place around the whole area of privilege. Nowadays, because of modern technology, printers and distributors often never see the print coming from the newspapers, from the journalists and the editors, because it goes through a computer right into the paper. Yet such people are still liable for anything that appears in the Press. Printers and distributors should be immune from being enjoined in legal actions arising from alleged defamation.
First, I would like to join with other Senators in thanking both Senator Cassidy and Senator Farrell for bringing this debate to the House. It is very timely, but it does require deep thought and discussion. If we are to seriously contemplate the possibility of establishing a body to adjudicate on grievances in relation to Press or media coverage in this country, we have an obligation to look at the question from all sides. Like other speakers, I believe it is important to look at the history in Britain, where there was a Press Council with the high-minded ambition of having the Press play a role in regulating itself but which eventually was abandoned by those closest to it precisely because the watchdog was shown to have a bark but no real bite. This was referred to by the Minister in his speech.
It would be important also to have some input from the Press itself, from the owners and from those who present the public face of the media — the journalists, who have a very commendable ethical code of their own but again some problems in making sure that the code is applied in everyday working. We cannot complain about how the Press reports something if we do not have free access to information, or when you have a press liaison or public relations machine that sees its job as diverting the focus of journalists' attention away from particular issues or providing the journalists with a different target.
As has been mentioned by several Senators here tonight, there is the constant threat or shadow of litigation. While we all want the Press and media to give us a right of reply, sometimes that right of reply is too late in coming, when the issue is already lost and you are guilty, even though you are innocent several months later. But we want this right of reply or the Press even to acknowledge when they get it wrong. I quite understand that the media are slow to publish corrections when the legal advice may well be that by making a correction it may be an admission of liability and leave the publication wide open to litigation and heavy damages and costs. That is a fact of life. It has been mentioned by several Senators.
Over the last few months we have seen the veil pulled back by some of our Government ordered inquiries. We have also seen how the pressure of litigation, or even threat of litigation, has been applied to suppress the truth. One instance is the long saga of the Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site. In that instance power and money were brought into play. This showed how a journalist's story triggered off an apology written within the newspaper itself and how the original report was eventually fully vindicated, not by the newspaper but by a State inquiry. I would question in that instance the newspaper's own checking efforts. That is something that caused a sensation at the time and possibly is one of the reasons this was brought up. It shows that but for the Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site saga, which is continuing, perhaps that would not have been seen. From a political viewpoint, we have also seen in recent months how reports which were dismissed as rumour and disinformation have turned out to be based on fact. We have seen how some of our own colleagues have been fed disinformation or wrong information which subsequently went into speeches and statements.
On an issue which is particularly sensitive in my own region, have we — and I ask myself have I? — the moral courage to ask Aer Lingus how many free flights were provided to their friends in the media? We may not ask those questions because we do not want to sour our own relationship with the Press. Senator Maurice Manning talked about the tension that should be there between the Press and politicians. Questions need to be asked but you say if I raise that perhaps I will never get a line again. However, it is important that they are raised.
We have a situation where the newspapers here took a step forward by providing a complaints unit within each paper which makes corrections and clarifications each day, but at least in one case this appears to be total window dressing. We have a situation where one of our Sunday newspapers does not even deign to provide a letters to the editor section where the right of reply can be exercised. That is the Sunday Business Post. We have a situation too where journalists have been locked in dispute with their own management over the ethical standards operating in a particular medium. It certainly reflects the double standards of this country when a newspaper which fights its own journalists and their code of conduct is also party to pontificating about ethics in business on either side of the Atlantic. That certainly is hypocritical.
There was reference to efforts by editors in this country to set up an organisation which would commit them to standards of behavour. This happened almost 15 years ago and important people at the time were involved. The will to do something about the way the Press operated was driven by the perception that the Press was leaving itself open to justifiable criticism. The few, whose activities were largely generating the criticism, were also those who dissented from the idea of standard setting and sticking to those standards.
What we are talking about as has been said by many Senators, is balance. We need balance from our media, but we also need to be balanced in our judgments. The question requires not only deep thought but the most thorough investigation. It requires that we should be fair all round.
I agree with the Minister that it would be unwise for the Government to intervene in an area that traditionally has been free and it is certainly not right to impose structures that might damage something we hold dear — the democratic role of the media, and of the print media in particular.
It is heartening to hear so many speakers agree on the item for discussion here this evening.
The Senator had competition elsewhere.
I thank all the Senators who come in and spoke so positively in relation to this proposal. I also thank the Minister. This is my eighth year as Communications spokesperson for Fianna Fáil in Seanad Éireann. I see dangers ahead from the British media coming to Ireland, particularly the tabloids as one Senator pointed out and it is because of that that I and Senator Farrell put this motion on the agenda this evening.
However, I agree with the Minister when he said that the problem is at international levels. The air waves know no boundaries nor do television signals. This is not the case with the print media. At some future date, the Minister might consider setting up an Oireachtas committee to examine, note and participate fully in proposed legislation at present at European Parliament level to retain and to allow for certain standards.
As the Minister said in his speech, standards are important in broadcasting and the provisions of these instruments which deal with a variety of important topics is welcome. These topics include respect for human dignity and rights and control of pornography and violence which are evident on our screens night after night. Pornography and violence present a bad example to our youth and contribute to world violence.
We have seen what happened in California when people are unemployed; the devil finds work for idle hands. Our broadcasting standards have set the tone across Europe and the world down through the years. The Minister should seriously consider setting up a small Oireachtas committee to advise the Minister of State and her officials and to frame a motion to put to the European Parliament to stop the broadcast of violence. Violent videos and violent TV soap operas may feature physical or sexual violence. Such unacceptable practice does not augur well for our long term future as Europeans or for the world in general.
I want to thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me time tonight. I am delighted and heartened with the tremendous response received and hope that the print media will respond to this motion. I look forward to hearing their views over the next couple of months.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 7.35 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.