I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to review the safeguards available to it in light of the recent media coverage of the Kilkenny tragedy and the Paralympics issue.
Media Reportage: Motion.
This debate follows from recent incidents of press reportage which give rise to serious questions regarding journalistic standards in this country. Freedom of expression and high standards in the exercise of press freedom are essential elements of a healthy democracy. As public representatives, it is our duty to guard these freedoms closely and it is for this reason that this motion is before this House.
The daily events which unfold in our society are the subject of reportage and comment in the media. In this way we become aware of and are informed of developments at local, national and international level. Sadly, some of this reportage will involve tragic incidents such as the recent loss of an entire family in Kilkenny. One would hope and expect an appropriate level of sensitivity and fair play to be shown in media coverage of all events but particularly so in such cases. Concerns have been expressed that this was not the case in this particular instance and I know many Members will address these concerns in this debate.
As Minister of State with special responsibility for equality and disability, I would like to focus my remarks on the recent coverage of the Paralympics issue by the Sunday Independent newspaper. The views expressed in the article by Miss Mary Ellen Synon of 22 October, and the offensive way in which they were termed, gave rise to widespread outrage among the public at large and among people with disabilities in particular. The outrage and deep sense of hurt at seeing our athletes with disabilities pilloried in such a way has been immense.
In company with the many commentators on the article by Miss Synon published by the Sunday Independent newspaper on 22 October, I would like to make my own response to some of the issues which have been raised. I addressed these issues in an article published by the Sunday Independent on 27 October when I suggested that the defence proffered, of a public platform for debate, begged the question as to what the public was being called on to debate. Was it whether a majority of the paper's readers agreed or disagreed with the views expressed by Miss Synon or was the issue whether it was correct and appropriate that the Sunday Independent allowed this particular piece to be published?
My view then and now is that there was no issue for the public to vote on. People with disabilities are equal, they have equal rights and they are entitled to display their talents and abilities in every field of human endeavour, including sport at international level. Athletes and other sports competitors who qualify to compete at the highest level will be given the honour of representing their country at the Olympics and at the Paralympics in the case of people with disabilities.
As a society, we are building equality for all our citizens, as witnessed by the coming into operation three days after the publication of Miss Synon's article of the most recent anti-discrimination measure passed by the Oireachtas, the Equal Status Act, 2000. This Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in service provision. The Equal Status Act, which came into operation on 25 October 2000, adds to the protection for people with disabilities provided by the Employment Equality Act, 1998, which is operational since 18 October 1999 and prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace.
Further significant developments occurred this year for people with disabilities including the establishment of Comhairle and the National Disability Authority in June of this year and, in conjunction with these developments towards inclusivity, services for people with disabilities were mainstreamed in June of this year putting an end to the segregated approach which existed until then and which represented one more barrier to equal opportunity and participation.
Each of these measures and initiatives represent ground-breaking developments in equality for people with disabilities and the ongoing commitment, year by year, to achieve an equal and inclusive society for all. I found the timing of the recent Sunday Independent article to be almost as strange and insensitive as its content. This is a time to celebrate the expression of our desire as a society to be inclusive rather than to reach into the prejudices of the past.
The strength and volume of the reaction expressed over the last few weeks to views expressed in the Sunday Independent demonstrate clearly that the majority of the public correctly identified the nature and tone of the article for what it was. The views expressed by one journalist, when set against the critical assessment of the majority of our people, are clearly against the tide of change in this country which is opening new doors and opportunities for people with disabilities and moving away from the appalling prejudices of the past.
The crucial issue which was raised by Miss Synon's article and which is at the core of today's debate, is whether it was correct and appropriate for the Sunday Independent to publish the article in the first place. As I have already said, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental human and civic rights which help to protect and maintain a democratic and pluralist society while having regard to the rights of individuals and the common good. Very often balancing these rights and responsibilities relies on the independent editorial judgment of the press and media generally. An essential element of this judgment is to determine when and if something is reasonable comment. In my view, the article on the Paralympics went beyond reasonable comment and wandered into the territory of offensive and pointless viewpoint. It was the failure of the Sunday Independent to recognise this which was the truly offensive aspect of this controversy.
Today's debate has at its heart the question of balance between the privilege of free expression and the responsibility which this privilege must entail. As public representatives, we are committed to safeguarding freedom of speech. What we must consider today is how we can also safeguard the equally important right to have fair speech and impartial comment.
People with disabilities deserve to achieve equality and inclusion. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to securing the rights of people with disabilities through the legislative and administrative framework which it has built up over the past three years. The Employment Equality Act, the Education Act, the National Disability Authority Act, the Comhairle Act and the Equal Status Act have been enacted during the term of this Government and have created the framework upon which we will build this equality. The ability to overcome the practice and prejudice of the past has been demonstrated clearly by people with disabilities in all walks of life, including education, training and employment, and sport and recreation. It is the rest of society that must catch up so that we can never again witness the unfairness and hurt caused by the author of the recent article which failed to recognise that, when one looks beyond the disability, one sees the ability of the individual and the right of that individual to participate.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am slightly confused by the wording of this motion. When we asked for a debate on this issue, we asked that it focus in on the role of the media in Irish society and some of the current issues to which the Minister of State quite rightly devoted most of her speech, that is, people with a disability and equality. I agree with everything she said which I believe would win the support of every Member of the House. However, she dealt only in passing and in general with the issues of media responsibility and freedom. I intend to deal mainly with this aspect.
This debate is taking place in the context of the spectacular lack of judgment by one newspaper not just once, but twice, over a short period. I do not propose to dwell on the specifics of the two articles. The public made its views known loudly and strongly and apologies have been tendered. One of the questions we must ask is whether lessons have been learned by those involved. In the case of the Sunday Independent and its past track record, we may well have reason to doubt that lessons have been learned. However, we can wait and see.
In the wider context there are serious issues to be addressed. It is my view that it would be better if they were addressed not by us as legislators, not by the State, but by the media industry itself. Most journalists felt offended and expressed great indignation and outrage at these two articles. The two articles in question found very few defenders in the media and a number of people in this House with close media associations attacked them very strongly.
The question is what happens next because this is not a good area for State intervention. A free press is a free press and, as long as it is aware of its responsibilities, its rights must be protected. By and large, we have a responsible media indus try in this country. There are few saints in the industry but, by and large, the owners of the main media outlets take their responsibilities seriously, have a genuine concern for the well-being of the country and aspire to high standards in the way in which they run their newspapers. They do not blatantly seek to interfere in politics. The same can be said of most journalists. Most journalists we meet in our everyday work are honest and straightforward. They may be cranky, graceless at times and some may have forgotten what it is to buy a round, but in my experience most of them seek to do their work in a responsible way and it shows.
The Irish daily newspapers are good by any standard. They compare well by international standards, provide good quality journalism and do so, for the most part, in a reasonable and fair way. I may quibble about the profusion of opinion-makers, columnists in the newspapers and the new opinion police, particularly in the Sunday papers, but as long as there is a reasonable variety, the more points of view heard in public debate, the better. This all makes for a more open and comprehensive debate on public issues. As long as newspapers are not used to wage personal vendettas and the agendas are open and seen to be open, then there can be no real quibble because that is what a free press is all about.
We politicians would all like to be better loved and better understood, but life is not like that. There will be media favourites today and flavours of every month, but generally in politics and in the media what goes around comes around, and the person who is the media favourite today may well find himself or herself under fairly scorching criticism a year or so later. There is an old truism that any politician who places his faith in media friendships, relies upon the unswerving support of the media or feels that by being close to the media he or she will get a better press had better forget it. There are very few loyalties among journalists. Certainly personal friendship will come a poor second if getting a good story is what comes first.
The media industry in Ireland today is very strongly based economically which was not the case ten years ago. In the last ten years we have seen the death of the Irish Press. It was a good newspaper which should never have died. It died through mismanagement, incompetence, bad industrial relations and stupidity. It was then and is a great loss to Irish journalism. Today the other Irish newspapers are very strong economically. The Independent Group is about to open a new printing press on the Naas Road. It has an international presence and extraordinarily strong reserves. The Irish Times has established itself as one of the great international newspapers but, more than that, it has a very strong financial underpinning. The Irish Examiner has also been making great strides in recent times and the tabloids for the most part enjoy prosperity. Our newspaper and media industry is among the true beneficiaries of the great economic expansion and prosperity of recent times.
In the past the media complained it was being disadvantaged economically but that argument no longer holds the force it then held. The media industry is now able to stand economically on its own feet, expand internationally and withstand any outside predators who may seek to come in. However, there are problems. The recent articles outraged the public, not just on the specifics of the articles but because they pointed to a persistent underlying nastiness which is present in parts of the media. This is felt by ordinary people as much as by politicians. Ordinary people do not like the absence of fair play and personal nastiness on a fairly sustained basis on the part of newspapers.
It would be good to think that when such nastiness breaks out the media itself would police itself voluntarily and restrain the excesses, but this will not happen. It will not happen because the nature of the media is that there is extreme competition. This extreme competition between different sections of the media drives down standards as newspapers compete for the lower end of the market. This is also true of television, radio and magazines. We even saw recently where In Dublin was used as a vehicle for advertising prostitution, massage parlours and so forth.
The media is driven by the need to compete and to be one step ahead, and it is very difficult to ask such an industry to police itself. The existence of this type of behaviour is the strongest case against reform or liberalisation of the libel laws. If some of our newspapers are this bad when strong libel laws are in place, how much worse would they be if these restraints were not there and they had a free hand to do explicitly the things they can now only hint at?
The picture painted is too awful to contemplate. It shows the lower end of our media left entirely free to its own devices in an extremely competitive world where the pressure exists to go further and further in pushing back whatever frontiers there are. I have made this point many times to journalists and most refuse to accept it. They seem to believe their profession is above that sort of thing, that there are separate entities in journalism and what appears in the Irish Independent, The Irish Times or the Irish Examiner bears no relationship to what appears in some other newspapers.
We have all seen abuse of power, even under the current circumstances. Two or three years ago I was involved in a case where a Sunday newspaper ran a series of lurid articles making allegations about an easily identifiable senior political figure. The series was hugely damaging to the reputation of that person and to his family but there was not a scintilla of truth in the allegations. He sued and they settled. If the libel laws had not been there that person would not have had an opportunity to vindicate his reputation and ensure that an apology was made. He was given recompense for the outrageous libel that had been alleged against him.
That politician was well able to look after himself. The ordinary individual also has rights. Where journalism is prurient, intrusive or exploitative, as it sometimes is, it is all the more important to ensure these rights are protected. I have not heard an argument from a media person which persuades me that this should not be the case or that the balance of advantage in the small number of existing restraints does not work for the public good and protect people who need to be protected. Nor am I convinced that it hinders newspapers in the pursuit of the publication of truth in the public interest.
The media industry has little sense of coherence or collegiality. There is little mutual trust between the various elements in the media and there is no corporate leadership. It is in the nature of things that this should be so. The media industry is a collection of entities, usually in intense competition with each other, individualistic by nature and each watching the other. It makes an occasional effort to speak with one voice. National Newspapers of Ireland, for example, has produced some useful and valuable reports but it has then adopted a take it or leave it attitude, with little real attempt to engage either politicians or public opinion in a real debate as to why changes should be made. To most journalists the changes seem obvious.
In debating with journalists I find a take it or leave it attitude. They ask if it is not obvious that libel laws are a bad thing, that there should be untramelled freedom of expression and to investigate and write as one wants, that politicians are fair game and that it is up to a person against whom charges are made to prove he or she is innocent. These arguments are trotted out by journalists against whom one engages. They do not sense the distrust felt by many people of an over powerful and untramelled media. They are not aware of the sense felt by many people of the right of fair play and of the right to protect one's good name and family.
Many in the media do not recognise the extent to which the public and politicians are worried about an over powerful media. The leaders of the industry, both in the National Union of Journalists and among those who control the media, have had little success in persuading people to support changes and reform.
When we debated this issue in May of this year there was general agreement among Senators about what could and should be done as an earnest of good will on the part of politicians and to persuade the media to put their own house in order. I mentioned that we might meet some of complaints persistently made by the media which have been identified by their own studies. There must be a speeding of the libel process. The period within which an action can be taken should be shortened and the overall process speeded up. People should not have to wait years for a case to be heard.
National Newspapers Association of Ireland is right in saying that in a defamation case the judge should be able to give financial guidelines to the jury when deciding on an award. We saw the need for this recently when the Supreme Court simply said the jury award in a recent case was excessive and sent the case back to have a more appropriate level of award determined. If guidelines could be given by the judge some of the recent excessive awards would not have been made. A case could be made for taking the determination of the award away from the jury and left to the judge. This would not necessarily mean a judge would be more severe than a jury but this is something the media would like and a fair case could be made for such a measure.
It is wrong that defendants in defamation actions cannot even make a lodgment in court without the admission of liability. That is archaic and unfair. Where an apology is offered it should not be viewed as an admission of liability. One of the things which stops newspapers and others from apologising is the realisation that an apology will be used in evidence against them. When a mistake is made, a speedy and full apology in the same space as the offending article should not be used against the newspaper and should almost be the end of the matter.
I believe everything I propose would be agreed on all sides of the House and would indicate to the media that politicians are willing to see changes made which would remove irksome restraints. However, in return we would like to see the media appreciate the level of distrust and fear of an untramelled media which exists. We would all like to see the media do what was promised many years ago and a commissioner or ombudsman for the newspaper industry established. This would be an independent entity which would sort out complaints fairly and at a low cost and would be in a position to impose sanctions on newspapers or radio or television stations which persistently and consistently behave in a way which breaches ethical standards. It would be a confidence boosting measure if the media industry itself was prepared to take a lead.
These newspaper articles were not isolated incidents. They were extreme cases of a drop in and breach of standards which have become much too common. They were foreign to the instincts of the huge majority of journalists and those who control the newspapers. However, there is as big an onus on the media industry itself to face up to these matters and to bring forward proposals as there is on us as legislators to find solutions to them.
We have a duty to maintain the balance between freedom of speech and the legitimate protection of the rights of the individual to which the Minister of State referred. As politicians we are prepared to go our part of the way. I would like a response from an industry which, to date, has made little effort to engage the public or politicians in a worthwhile debate.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace. This debate is important but it is unfortunate that it is taking place as a result of unwarranted media comment. I compliment Senator Manning on a fine contribution. He touched on the many facets of the problem of reporting in the media in a much better way than I or others could do. He did an excellent job.
The debate relates to the reporting of the recent tragedy in Kilkenny but I do not wish to comment further on that matter. It was sickening reporting and it saddened me. For many years I was a strong supporter of the Irish Press until it closed. I then aligned myself with the Irish Independent. I considered it a good newspaper for sports and that it had many good writers. I admired Mr. Fanning and his relatives from my area as people who were committed to the press. However, I was taken aback when I read the article in relation to the Paralympics by Miss Synon. One could use stronger terms than “offensive” to describe it.
Some 4,000 people participated in the Paralympics in Sydney and those people worked extremely hard over many years in preparation for the games. They were representing their parishes, counties and countries to the best of their abilities. The article in the Sunday newspaper which said they were staggering around was sickening. One must ask how much a reporter can write before he or she is called to heel, loses their job or is suspended for a time.
We must also consider the people who are in charge of those reporters, such as sub-editors and editors. One wonders what frame of mind they were in when they read those articles and cleared them. It leaves much to be desired. People have great confidence in the media and there are many top class reporters. However, one wonders how and why those articles were allowed to go through. The explanations and apologies given fell far short of what should have been done and must still be done for the people who were seriously offended.
Senator Manning referred to cases in which an apology is made. However, the apology usually appears on an inside page. The recent apology is probably the only one that was carried on the front page, in a small column on one side. Many of the people involved in sport to whom I spoke agreed it should have been carried the next day and that it should have been highlighted in the same manner as the original article. The Kilkenny case received prominent coverage in the newspaper which should be retracted. It left much to be desired in the minds of many people who trust the print media.
People involved in the Paralympics were particularly tarnished. I know some of those involved and I am aware of the training they did and how they and their families worked to ensure that they reached the maximum of their abilities. Some people in the media might consider that they did not reach a sufficient standard, but they have their own level which ensured that Ireland secured a number of gold, silver and bronze medals. It was a tremendous achievement by our competitors and great credit is due to them. I hope the article will not stop many others with disabilities who prepared for the recent Paralympics and who are preparing for future Paralympic games.
The people who worked so hard to improve their lot should be complimented. Government and Departments have ensured that facilities are available to them for training. Reference was made on the Order of Business today to local authorities. They have made a major contribution in many towns to enabling those people to access their homes and other facilities for training in their wheelchairs and otherwise. We should also remember the support provided to handicapped people in grant aid towards transport. This enables them to get from place to place and to participate. It ensured that they were in a position to represent Ireland.
It was great to watch the television coverage and to see all the Irish people in the parade and all the other participants. Unfortunately, we missed much of it because it took place during the day, but we saw the highlights. It was marvellous to see the performances of Irish people against the best in the world in the Paralympics.
Reference was made earlier to a press council. Something must be done quickly to ensure proper standards of reporting. Why should the use of a pen by one particular person destroy the livelihood or the future of another person, not only in the Paralympics but in political life or other walks of life, through reporting that is not factual or the leaking and printing of an inaccurate story?
What can one say about the reporter's comments on the Paralympics? Earlier I asked why the person who made those comments was not suspended. If a similar statement was made about other groups, such as Travellers or people of a different race, it would have been highlighted more and the people involved would have had to resign their positions or been suspended.
As regards sanctions against the newspaper, I cannot understand why people would continue to advertise in it. There were thousands of pounds worth of job advertisements in the same newspaper the following week. Such advertising should have been withdrawn for a period to show those involved in the newspaper that they will be penalised if they allow their reporters, sub-editors and editors to publish what they wish. The only way to penalise people is through their pockets. Many people who enjoyed buying the Sunday Independent every week to read about racing and other sports told me they would not buy it again because of that report. Such action must be taken against a newspaper which is prepared to write such reports.
I said earlier and Senator Manning also commented that the Government must establish a press council. I have heard similar comments over the past couple of years but nothing has happened. We must ensure that a press council is set up.
If a story breaks, it will be on Sky television every hour on the hour. However, if the report is untrue, it will be dropped from the news coverage but an apology will not be broadcast every hour on the hour for a number of days afterwards. A lot of damage was done when reports about one expert's comments on the BSE problem were publicised. However, many other experts have a different view. We read recently that some experts believe certain elements are not related in that field. We must ensure that if an error is made someone is held accountable.
I feel sorry for the person who wrote the article on the Paralympics because something must have been amiss on the night it was written. No one who knows anything about the Paralympics or has seen those people participate would have written such an article. I thank the Minister of State for her attendance and for her work for handicapped people, which is appreciated. Many people have spoken about her willingness to meet the different groups which seek to meet her.
I wish to share my time with Senator Costello.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister to the House. This debate is taking place because of the tasteless coverage of tragedies by some of our newspapers and the unfeeling articles written in other newspapers by people who seem to have little knowledge or insight into the topics on which they were writing. The two previous speakers did not mention photographs which are important in the coverage of tragedies. They were not relevant in the Kilkenny tragedy but I remember when I first went to America many years ago I was horrified to see photographs of dead bodies from accidents or murders on the front page of a newspaper. I wonder how much this adds to a story. In many cases it adds nothing at all; it is only included for the base reason of trying to sell a newspaper. It is exploitative coverage of a dead individual who does not have a right to sue the newspaper.
I remember about a year ago a young man was murdered while out cycling in a park in Australia. An Irish evening newspaper published a photograph of him with his dog beside the bicycle, although the family had appealed to the newspaper not to publish it. What did putting that photograph in the newspaper do for any of us? If the dog had not been there would it have been published? The newspaper published it to see if it would sell more newspapers. I doubt if it made us any the wiser about the story.
We must look at the tasteless coverage of the description of the dead. One of the things which upset those who read about the Kilkenny tragedy was the description of the bloated bodies of the children. We all know that bodies become bloated if they are in the water for some time. Given that this family was suffering great distress, did it help to put that in the newspaper? Did it make our sorrow about the terrible tragedy any greater? I doubt if it did. These graphic descriptions only added to the distress. It was stated that another body could only be identified by its dental records. That is how bodies must be identified when they reach a certain stage of decomposition. How much value does that add for us? Once we know the body has been identified, we are suitably glad so the case can proceed. One wonders about the value of such descriptions.
There was also the disclosure in the Kilkenny case of reported personal details about one of the victim's lives. We do not know if they are true but that woman could do nothing about it. It is easy to write things about the dead because they are not in a position to take any action. The distress caused to the family and the fact the details may not be true have nothing to do with it. It seems to be a question of putting forward the most tasteless accusations when there is no supporting evidence.
The other episode which caused great distress was the article by that foolish woman who writes every Sunday, with great intolerance, about Travellers, refugees, the disabled and the Paralympics. The Minister and Senators will barely believe it but she has written very unkindly about me. I did not get to read the article at the time so I do not know if I would have done anything about it. I am one of those people who, as Senator Moylan advised, do not bother buying papers that they do not think are of much value.
What worried me even more about this issue was the defence by one of this woman's colleagues on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" in which he said that these were not games of some import. For example, he said that one of the athletes had been accused of taking drugs and that that was very amusing to all of us. Why was it amusing? These people are competing very seriously. I was sad to think they were getting into the same sort of mess as the mainstream Olympics competitors. I cannot understand why the word "amusing" was used. It gave a certain tone to what this man was saying, that somehow this involved a lesser group of people. That is not the case. It is just a different group of people participating in a different games. I am relieved that I did not go there because I would not have got anywhere with all their jumping, etc. They were incredible.
The fact that all of us have disabilities which cannot be seen never seems to be taken into account by people like that woman, and I am sure she has disabilities too. We have always been told that effort is so important in competitions such as the Olympics but apparently other athletic endeavours are of no value. If one does not come first, it is of no value, yet we were always told that competing is of importance.
I am a great believer in the power of the purse. If somebody does not like something, they should not bother buying it. I admire Hugh Leonard's columns but I can understand the position of the health boards which are considering whether to continue advertising for staff in the pages of that newspaper. There are plenty of other papers in which they can do that. If someone believes that those they care for are being dealt with offensively by any newspaper, that is a very good method of showing how they feel about that.
Senator Manning mentioned politicians. We all have to accept the criticism levelled at us, which is sometimes justified, but he was right to refer to the stories for which there was no basis of truth whatsoever. Americans repeatedly tell me, and it is important to mention this on the day the American presidential election is taking place, that we should not let politics go the way of America where it is the money one has and the advertisements one puts out in the newspapers and on television that matter. If we do not closely watch the situation here we could end up with just as bad a problem as that in America.
While I understand the reasons politicians are criticised, I wonder if the family life of the President is a suitable topic for critical articles. Unless it was notorious I would have though we were wiser to wait until the President was out of office because she or he is supposed to be above politics. As a matter of good taste I would have thought that was something the papers might remember.
A press council to examine ethical standards would be welcome. While we do not want newspaper owners having editorial control of their papers, they could take a more enthusiastic interest in what is being written in them and printed in the way of photographs which are beyond what could be described as being good taste.
I thank Senator Henry for giving me the lion's share of her time. She is very kind. Senator Henry is always concise and I hope I can be likewise. I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate, which many of us on all sides of the House have called for over many weeks and months, and I am delighted that we have at last got around to it.
As the motion states, the debate was provoked by the recent coverage of the two events that are referred to in the motion, namely, the tragic and heartbreaking fate that befell a family from Kilkenny and the outrageous and callous attack on competitors in the Paralympics which Mary Ellen Synon wrote about in her column in the Sunday Independent on 22 October.
This is not a knee-jerk debate. We have called for it many times and the issue of standards in the media has been a constant subject of debate for many years. On a number of occasions coverage of certain events by some sections of the press provoked serious concern and a call for reform within and without these Houses.
I would have liked the Minister to deal with the debate in a broader fashion. She rightly concentrated on the vulnerable section of society that is often unfairly and tastelessly dealt with in the media, whether it is a family tragedy, private lives or, as in the case of the Paralympics, people with disabilities who are easy targets. Those people are dealt with so tastelessly because they are either dead and there is no legal comeback or it is a collective body of people like the Travellers, immigrants or people with disabilities. That is a cowardly way for a newspaper to act. It almost appears as if the newspaper industry is acting to effect shock and morbid interest among its readers, thereby gaining more profits, rather than to report the news as it happens in a reasonable, appropriate and tasteful fashion.
The Minister touched on some of the broader issues in terms of standards and the structures that might be put in place but she did not give us any idea of the Government's thinking on a press council, an ombudsman or any recommendation that might have come from the Commission on the Newspaper Industry. That is something we were looking for in this debate.
I strongly support the call for reform. The right of free speech should not provide anyone with a right to insult, degrade or be callous about other citizens. The right to free speech should not give anyone the right to invade the privacy of a family, often at the most heartbreaking of times. We need to achieve a balance of rights which vindicates and protects the right to free speech while at the same time recognising the responsibilities that are intrinsically linked to that right and which must be upheld. The right to free speech does not give a carte blanche to anyone to publish invective, gossip or lies.
Many people invoke the fifth amendment to the United States constitution as some sort of beacon for press freedom. I do not believe it serves that purpose, nor do I believe that this particular amendment is relevant to media regulation in a modern European democracy.
We have already established lines of demarcation in relation to the work of the media. Our incitement to hatred and libel laws provide limits and standards on what may and may not be published. We do not have an untrammelled right to publish whatever may appeal to an editor, a proprietor or circulation manager. In our laws we already recognise the power of the media and acknowledge that there are some incidents when this power can be misused to undermine the public good or attack the good name of an individual.
Having accepted the principle that freedom brings responsibilities, this motion calls on the Government to examine the options open to it to allow citizens and groups of individuals a right of redress against biased or unprincipled reporting or comment. The establishment of a press council should be examined. There is widespread accept ance that the media will move to establish an industry controlled and financed press council only when the Oireachtas initiates reform of the libel laws. I do not accept this logic as the establishment of a press council cannot be used as a token in a Dutch auction. If the media establishment accepts that a press council is needed, it should move to establish such a body rather than holding out the prospect of a press council as a carrot to force the change in the laws of libel which it wants.
I am not suggesting that our defamation laws do not need reviewing and updating. Such a process would be beneficial but fraught with difficulties. In the not too distant past, the Attorney General, then a Deputy for Dublin South-East, moved a Private Members' motion in the Dáil on the libel laws. Anyone who reads that debate or examines the lack of interest the Progressive Democrats have shown in the issue while in Government will understand that reforming the libel laws is not an easy process. It is a fraught and tortuous path for any Government or Legislature to embark upon, but we need reform. I do not accept that providing citizens with a forum for redress against what they believe is biased and unfair reporting cannot be established until such reform is on the Statute Book. We must introduce reform and not look upon it as a quid pro quo to suit the media. The Government must examine the issue.
This attitude casts doubt on the effectiveness of an industry-controlled body. An independent structure such as an ombudsman, as recommended in the report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry, may be a preferable option. The self-regulation of industry has come before the House on a number of occasions in the recent past and I have considerable doubts about the validity or desirability of the self-regulatory process. Whether in the realm of Garda complaints, banking regulation or broadcasting and the media, I am in favour of independent regulation supported by free-standing legislation if deemed necessary. I ask the Minister of State to refer to these issues in terms of the Government's stance. Whether we are talking about a press council, an ombudsman, self-regulation or independent regulation, these matters are at the heart of the issue of standards in the media. I would like these issues addressed as this is the broader area into which the debate should move.
Industry self-regulation does not give the appearance of impartiality or fairness. It is hard to fault the many people who maintain that the principle of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" informs the work of self-regulatory bodies. The weakness of self-regulation in the media can be shown by the current code of practice on privacy published and adopted by the National Newspapers of Ireland in 1997. Few people know about this code of practice and I do not know how an individual is meant to take a case if he or she believes this code has been breached. I know of no journalist or newspaper found to be in breach of this code or of the sanctions provided for such breaches. In short, this code of practice, while welcome in theory, has had no effect in practice, good, bad or indifferent.
The establishment of an independent ombudsman should be considered seriously. The report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry provides a sound basis for moving forward in this direction. Unfortunately, the Government has allowed the report to gather dust. It appears it has no intention of taking any action on foot of the report and it stands condemned for that lethargy. The establishment of a transparent and impartial forum for redress would be beneficial for the media industry.
I hope this debate will not be portrayed as a media-bashing exercise. There is no way in which citizens can complain about or challenge the manner of reporting. This situation must be changed and I hope this debate will be the beginning of Government action and Opposition pressure to ensure we establish an independent structure which will compel the media industry to establish standards and make it accountable for the first time. This debate will be worthwhile if it produces such a outcome.
I have an interest to declare in this matter as I am a director of Independent Newspapers. However, I speak for myself as I carry no brief for Independent Newspapers or the newspaper publishers of Ireland who may not agree with some of the things I wish to say.
I have supported the call for this debate for some time in the belief that there are serious issues concerning the media which need consideration by the House. From that point of view, the two reports cited in the motion concern the issue of presentation which is not the only issue. While I welcome the Minister of State, I did not expect to see her in the House. I thought the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, would be in the House but I hope the Minister of State will act as his proxy and I respect her position as a friend and advocate for people with disabilities.
We do not want to get bogged down in repeating the sincere and unanimous statements made in the House last week. My position is on the record without any equivocation or doubt as are those of my colleagues. I am puzzled by the introduction to the motion which asks the Government to examine what defences were available to it. I do not think the Government needs defences against the media and I would be concerned if any section of the media thought it was its duty to defend the Government. The people who need defences are ordinary citizens.
We must accept that we need a healthy media and a healthy indigenous press in these days of globalisation and wider access to media from all over the world. It was not for nothing that the press was called the Fourth Estate. Like the other estates, it is populated by people who make mis takes and who are subject to lapses in taste, judgment, charity and propriety. While attempting to correct these lapses and ensure they happen as seldom as possible and are at least hurtful as possible to the unprotected individual, we must not rush to judgment on what is an honourable profession and an important industry.
It is not for nothing that the fifth amendment to the American Constitution protected freedom of speech and expression. Similarly, it is not for nothing that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the same freedoms. There are other rights which have to be balanced, such as the right of people to a good name, privacy and not to be intruded upon. By and large these are balances which are weighed most of the time and most of the time people get it more or less right, but we do need arrangements, in situations where is not got right, in order that the ordinary citizen has the opportunity to have a correction made.
The libel laws are really a rich man's game. There are people we all know who made a cottage industry out of libel actions. I wrote a book about political life in the North. I was writing, not in a columnist's fashion but rather in a friendly fashion, about two rather colourful politicians whose language was as colourful, both in public and private, as they were. I am afraid the publisher's solicitor, on reading the draft, said he had to inform me that Mr. A and Mr. B would get up in court and say they never used a four letter word and, therefore, the book lost a great deal in the telling.
We cannot blunt the edge of investigative journalism. There is a difference between the reporter and the commentator and by and large the concerns of people refer to comment much more than to the basic reporting in the media. We know that every journalist in Dublin knew in the early 1990s the guts of the business being dragged out now in tribunals at huge expense to the public purse. If they had been able to report those things at the time, political life might have been better.
There needs to be a code of ethics and separately newspapers should have transparent codes of ethics. There should be means whereby people can gain redress quickly. Like other Senators, I too am in favour of the proposal to establish a press council. Like Senator Costello, I would prefer an independent press council to a self-regulatory one. There is no excuse for people not regulating themselves and they should attempt to do so, but a press council or an ombudsman should be independent. I say so because I have been in that business for a while too. I have done a report on police complaints in Northern Ireland which led to the setting up of the Police Ombudsman there. For the credibility of any office, it simply must be independent. People no longer believe in policemen investigating other police. That is as true of the Garda as it is of any other police force. People increasingly question the regulation of professions by professional bodies like the Bar Council or, indeed, the General Medical Council in Britain. To ensure credibility, the press council needs to be independent and must be seen to be independent.
I found little in Senator Manning's contribution from which I would want to differ. There are, as he clearly said, concerns regarding libel actions and the libel laws which at present make it difficult for newspapers to apologise.
I have pushed the notion of a newspaper ombudsman. However, newspaper managements get legal advice which states that if one apologises one leaves oneself open not only to an action for which one is liable now, but one to which one is liable for seven years. People can suddenly remember after up to six years and 364 days that somebody said something wonderfully wounding, hurtful and libellous about them all that time before. There is an argument for reducing that time.
This country's libel laws are unique in Europe in that no direction is given to juries about the amount of damages. Recently there has been a court case and one will have read the dissenting judgment of Mrs. Justice Denham suggesting that there should be some direction or relativity between the fact that a person who becomes a paraplegic as a result of an accident can receive less in damages than a person who is even technically libelled. That is now thought to be probably against the European Convention on Human Rights and certainly the Tolstoy case in Britain a few years ago which laid that down.
The individual who wishes only to clear his or her name, who does not wish to start an industry and who is not trying to mine a particular fortuitous seam of gold has very little recourse. That could so easily be done if we were to follow, for instance, the defamation Act introduced in Britain which provided a fast-track for the disposal of libel actions to which there was no defence. They entitled the claimant to bring a claim speedily before the court without the necessity of a jury hearing and, if successful, such persons could immediately get reliefs. That would involve a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory and an order that the defendant publish or cause to be published a suitable correction and apology. That would look after the positioning in the newspaper, etc. One could get damages up to a limit of £10,000 and an order restraining the defendant from publishing that matter or any further matter relating to it.
That Act also extends to the Internet, which is not covered by Irish law. It also covers the situation in broadcasting, which many of us have seen arise, where an unfortunate presenter or interviewer is suddenly faced by somebody who makes a libellous statement and one can see the hoops the presenter or interviewer must go through then to distance himself or herself from it. Therefore, there are changes which could be made to the libel laws.
I was a little worried when I heard Senators speak of boycotting advertising in a newspaper. The boycott is a very blunt instrument. I am all in favour of the individual deciding what he or she wants or does not want to buy and for people exercising their personal censure in that way, but it becomes very dangerous and open to abuse if public bodies, Government or majorities suddenly decide to wield that particular economic weapon. There are newspapers I do not buy because I do not like their content or previous content. I am glad to say that none of them are Irish newspapers.
Let us keep a sense of proportion in this. Like Senator Costello, I would like the Government to begin to think about its reaction to the Commission on the Newspaper Industry, which reported a few years ago. I would like either the Government to bring forward proposals for dealing with this or a cross-party committee of both Houses to sit down, take evidence and talk to the newspaper industry, journalists and people who have concerns in this matter in order to try to move the matter forward. It is a hugely important issue. Our democracy depends crucially on there being a healthy, active, vibrant media. The citizens, and particularly those who cannot speak for themselves, are entitled to be defended from slander, loss of their good name and intrusions of privacy. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of man and legislators in the State to arrange for both.
The Minister of State took a strong line on the the recent article by Mary Ellen Synon when she asked if the issue was whether a majority of the paper's readers agreed or disagreed with the views expressed by Miss Synon or if the issue was whether it was correct and appropriate that the Sunday Independent allowed this particular piece to be published. The Minister of State was perfectly right to ask that question. I agree with everything she said – as a matter of fact, I do not think she went far enough. I am not a learned man as regards the media, but I have been very conscious of what has been happening in the media generally, particularly in the last few years.
Senator Maurice Hayes made some very strong points, particularly as someone who is on the board of Independent Newspapers. I find it very upsetting that he makes the point very strongly as regards one case but not the other.
I do not understand why people have to sink so low to get a point across, as in the article to which I have referred. I make that point as someone who is not very learned but very logical. Miss Synon wrote:
Surely physical competition is about finding the best – the fastest, strongest, highest, all that. It is not about finding someone who can wobble his way around a track in a wheelchair, or who can swim from one end of a pool to the other by braille.
The claim that such a statement is not an attempt to demean reminds me of what I have read about events in central Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. I resent that very much. I do not understand how anybody can say that the press itself is not able to handle that. I was glad to see that one week later in a newspaper still subsidised, I understand, by the same chairman and board that represents the other newspaper, Mr. Cooper reacted in the way he did to what this particular person had said.
Miss Synon wrote:
Young people of 18, 19 and 20 should not have the vote at all, so one is relieved to learn they use it so little—
Acting Chairman
A reference, please.
It is a reference to what has been said by this particular person, which I resent.
Acting Chairman
What newspaper is it?
It is the Sunday Tribune of 29 October 2000. She goes on to state:
Which is not to say the voting age should moved back to 21. Not at all; it should be moved back to 26. Today, anyone aged 18 or 19, or even in his early 20s, is likely to be a student – that is, an individual indulging in an artificially prolonged adolescence. He will be going on for years enjoying education somebody else has paid for and living on grants somebody else has provided. In other words, the young voter is an enfranchised parasite. No one should have the right to vote until he is part of the link between Government spending and tax revenues: in other words, until he is ready to get a job.
I do not know how we got so far before we met this person. If I do not react to that, we are going nowhere. Whether we have a press council or a code of ethics devised by the press, sub-editors or editors, there is no answer. That piece printed by the newspaper was highlighted. Was it highlighted because it wanted to get it across or because it did not like what the person was saying? I do not understand it. One cannot read what is next to it because it is in such strange print, but this was strongly highlighted by the newspaper.
Is anybody answerable? That is why the Minister of State's speech was so relevant. Somebody must be answerable, whether it is ourselves or the press itself. I do not want to knock everybody in the press because if we do not have openness, where are we going? We were closed in for long enough.
It is sad that Senator Maurice Hayes has left the Chamber because he made very strong points which I would probably take up. He said there was a difference between a comment made by a person and by reporters. I have found that in the last few years everybody is making a comment and nobody is really reporting. They think they have a divine right and are entitled to comment because people read it. They could bring the country down. If we do not agree with what is said, they will say "So what?" Is there anything wrong with that? There certainly is.
We are reaching a point where people are saying that we need the perfect person and that the disabled person has no rights. They have many rights and we fought for them for many years. There is equality for all, and rightly so. There should be no difference between people. I defy anybody who says we should not look at or listen to them.
I send my congratulations – I seldom do so – to RTE which covered the Paralympics. Those who competed were a credit to us. We were close to the top 20 nations that competed. Some 126 nations competed and we came 21st, so we were in the top 20%. I am not saying those who competed were a credit to us just because they are disabled; they were more of a credit to us because they are disabled. It is wrong to say we should not look at a person who is only two seconds outside the world record for swimming the same length because she is disabled. We knocked her and we allowed it to happen. The question is who allowed that to happen.
A sub-editor read that offensive article. It went from that person to the editor, and they both said they would do nothing about it. They were afraid there would be claims. Should there not be claims against the people who spoke about the tragedy in Kilkenny, which the Kilkenny People took to heart? There was a front page editorial. The last time I saw a front page editorial was on the Thursday of the last general election by the Irish Independent saying one should not do this or should do that. Neither the Irish Independent nor any other newspaper had a front page editorial even when the Second World War broke, yet it had one on the day of the election and it stood proud. I would not stand proud about that.
I do not want to be political one way or the other but I certainly will not allow people like these and others to knock disabled people or anybody else. They have no right to do that. It was not a comment, it was in writing. It was a comment that went before people who were being paid a lot of money by the board of Independent Newspapers and the boards of other newspapers.
There was much concern in Cork city and county one Saturday morning because of what was shown on the front of a newspaper. As a Corkman, I could not believe what I saw, a child covered by a blanket. I resented that very much and why would I not? People could not believe that was on the front of the newspaper. That is why those in Kilkenny are speaking out. More people should speak out and should not be afraid to do so. It was awful and there was no need to do that. It was a tragedy and for people to avail of that and to mention personal particulars about a member of the family is awful. How can we sink so low? We must stand above that.
I have no objection to people investigating. We have seen reporters who have done good work. I could mention many reporters here, particularly reporters whom I know well and really admire. However, I know very few. I do my own thing and speak my mind.
The media has a responsibility to itself. There are some scrap newspapers. I no longer buy Sunday newspapers because they are something else. I look at the newspaper and wonder where I was for the previous week because of the difference between what is printed and what is really happening. They put up one line and the story is underneath which gives the wrong impression and that is not fair. That is all we are saying. It is not fair to give the wrong impression and the code of ethics should be questioned.
There are committees of this House, of which I would like to be a member, which could put the media's house in order, so to speak. The media has a responsibility to the public which wants to read the truth and journalism must work properly. Stephen Collins is a credit to us, I admire Una Claffey who, unfortunately, will be a loss to RTE and Joe O'Malley is a great reporter who tells the truth, which is what the public want.
Acting Chairman
Although the Senator is complimenting journalists, he should not single out people outside the House.
That is my view. I am sorry Senator Hayes is not in the House.
Acting Chairman
Senator Cregan is referring too often to the fact that the Senator is absent. It is fine to refer to what he said.
The point has been made that the newspaper in question apologised to the House and to the public. However, that is not good enough. If a code of ethics is to be drawn up and a press council set up it should be independent. The country needs such a body in the next ten to 20 years. If individuals in the media believe they have a divine right, a proper code of ethics must be drawn up so that those who wish to make proper comment can be defended and protected. This issue brought me back to the 1930s and 1940s and put me in mind of history programmes. I resented this, as did many others over the last two or three weeks.
We have a responsibility as legislators to say to these people that if they will not put their house in order we will do it for them. This is what our constituents ask us to do. Some journalists believe, rightly, they can say that people, including politicians, are right or wrong and they have done so over the past few years. I am not saying that such people should be protected. However, in this instance people who cannot protect themselves are being criticised. Another journalist made the point that if one cannot perform independently then one should not be at the games. That was most unfair. I do not understand how editors and sub-editors failed to deal with this issue. Someone must take responsibility and suf fer the consequences of their actions, whether it is the board members, the chairman, sub-editors, editors or the writer. One can write an article but it cannot be printed unless someone agrees to it. The fact that the print is highlighted is disgusting.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. When I read the motion, I wondered whether it was correct. I would have liked the debate to have been about the role of the media in society. However, the two examples cited in the motion – the Kilkenny tragedy and the article on the Paralympic games – may have focused my mind on how best to handle the issue of the role of the media in any walk of life. Perhaps these examples have made it easy for me to defend my case.
I was absolutely amazed to discover that the article by Miss Mary Ellen Synon stated that the Paralympic Games in Sydney were regarded as grotesque. The article also stated that the Olympic games were for the best, the fastest and the strongest, not for the lame or for someone wobbling his way around a track in a wheelchair. I took the article to mean that the physical performance of the lame was not to be applauded in the same way as we applaud the physically fit.
These views reflect an ideology that misunderstands competition, success, failure, achievement and self-esteem. These are the concepts we want our young people to understand to make our society a better place in which to live. The article suggested that there is no such thing as equality, that there is failure and that only the strongest or fastest are the best. As a teacher, am I to believe that students in my class who cannot keep up with the brightest are not equal in value and that their performance is less? I was taught during my second and third level education to value diversity and that all students are capable of reaching their full potential within their own field of competence. I believe we should applaud more those who are less gifted, that the physically fit athletes can cope themselves and we need to concentrate on those who are less gifted.
In my view all cultures and all lives are equal. Philosophy is about people and attitudes, not the survival of the fittest. The suggestion from the article seems to be that the rich have it all and that the disabled should be consigned to the background. The public was offended that the journalist wrote in such emotive and offensive language and did not treat people equally. It was irresponsible of the editor of the Sunday Independent to fail to recognise this offence. This view was reflected in the public outrage. Should the Sunday Independent have allowed this article to be published? An apology was issued which I had hoped would have got a headline. Instead, however, it got a side column in the Sunday Independent. Last Sunday I awaited an update and the editor's or another journalist's view on the article. There was no such article.
During the week I read another article which stated that when Senators are debating this issue they should condemn successive Governments for their failure to reform the libel laws and set up a press council. I am not here to criticise anyone, rather I am here to seek fair play and justice. I wonder whether a press council would have made any difference with regard to the Kilkenny tragedy and the Paralympic issue.
That is a good point.
The establishment of a press council, a media ombudsman or reform of the defamation laws will not make a difference. The question goes to the core of the personal behaviour of an individual journalist. It has nothing to do with the protection of a group of people or the future composition of a press council and its ability to protect me. I protect and defend myself in my profession. That is what I ask journalists to do.
I could not believe the article I read about the tragedy in Kilkenny. I immediately thought of the families concerned. The article showed no sensitivity for the trauma of the families. The journalists highlighted what they assumed were the causes of the tragedy. How dare they give reasons? No one knows the mind of anyone else in a given situation. How dare they presume to tell the public why something happened?
Today there is media comment about the two conjoined twins who are to be separated. It is said that "one" has died and "the other one" has not. I would prefer to have read that one child had died and the other child was in intensive care. The use of the word "one" is insensitive in this case when one considers the anguish of the parents and of the world. I will monitor media reports of this matter tomorrow.
What is the purpose of this type of sensationalist journalism? I put this question to friends and colleagues. They answered that senationalism increases circulation and is profitable. I ask journalists to present the news in a just and fair way and to consider the rights of the individual and the common good. Prejudice should not come into play and responsibility to the readership should always be to the forefront. Freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities. Newspaper editors must also aim to balance rights with responsibilities. Schools of journalism must reinforce the philosophy that all lives and cultures are of equal value and that members of the public should not be offended or hurt.
Most journalists are very responsible and indignant at such articles. In the case under discussion, one journalist is making all journalists look bad, just as one bad teacher or politician can make all teachers or politicians look bad. It is an old story. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander and all professions must consider how these issues are to be treated.
The appointment of a media ombudsman and the establishment of a press council have been suggested. I do not know the answers to this problem. I can only ask the journalists of the future to be fair, to investigate facts and present them in a fair way and to avoid sensationalism. Why do journalists feel the need to sensationalise the news? Is their purpose character assassination? Is this new style of journalism a feature of competition or is it merely attention seeking? I question the minds of journalists who write articles of this sort.
Journalists and all who hold public positions have a responsibility to protect society and the rights of individuals and to acknowledge that every person has the right to develop to his or her full potential.
I congratulate people with disabilities on their fine performances at the Paralympic Games. They did themselves and their country proud.
Mary Ellen Synon did society a favour by bringing this subject to the fore. I have long been asking for a debate on the media. Last week we saw a photograph of a footballer alongside a smaller photograph of an old man. The newspaper informed us that the stepfather of the footballer, who was named, was guilty of sex abuse. What connection did this footballer or his wife and family have with that case and why was his photograph published in the newspaper? It was done for the mean and low purpose of selling newspapers. The photograph bore no relationship to the article.
I grew up in a time when our teachers told us to read the leading article in the newspaper because it was written in perfectly composed and punctuated English. It was a lesson in itself. In those days the leading article contained the only comment in the newspaper. There were reporters who reported exactly what people said, verbatim by and large. Nowadays journalists comment. Profit is the most important feature of our newspapers. They are no longer watchdogs for the people. Their purpose is no longer to enlighten or inform. It is to make money for the conglomerates which control them. Many problems are caused by freelance journalists who are not paid if they cannot get their articles into the paper. They must grab a headline and produce an article which will sell the paper.
It saddens me to see the newspaper business go down this road. Legislators must take action to correct this development. In my 34 years of public life I have never had reason to complain about what the media wrote or said about me. However, it saddens me to see the media gathering outside a house where some atrocity has happened, photographing children and wives who are innocent victims and are not responsible for the occurrence. They are innocent victims; they have nothing to do with it. A privacy law must be introduced to protect such people. It is important to establish a press council but I would not trust the media to set up such a body and operate it. They will not do anything that would prevent them making money.
Another sad development in the media is the use of corner boy language, such as nicknames. If somebody is charged with a criminal offence, he or she is entitled to be called the name with which he or she was christened. Nobody has the right to label him or her a "brute" or a "cannibal". They have no right to say such things; that is outside the boundary.
The media controls and leads public opinion in a certain way to sell their newspapers and not for what is best. The main targets at present are priests, sports people, nuns and politicians. A young man involved in a recently reported case happened to be the grandson of a former Deputy and the headline used referred to "Grandson of TD". However, the former Deputy retired many years ago. What did he have to do with the case? I am totally opposed to this type of development.
The media set themselves up as experts on everything. Some great former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas came from RTE and the media. When they were involved in current affairs and agricultural programmes, they knew all the answers. We were told that if they were in politics they would be great. However, some of them only survived one Dáil term. Some of them were appointed Ministers on the day they entered the Oireachtas, but they were back in civilian life after the Government fell. They were not re-elected.
I know of only one politician who was formerly in the media that stood the test of time. He was from Sligo, although he was not on my side of the House. Ted Nealon stayed in politics until he decided to retire. He was a reasonable and sensible man and he stayed and worked as a politician. However, all the others were not re-elected. Some of them returned to the media to tell us, who had stood the test of time and been repeatedly re-elected, how it should be done.
Base and low standards are creeping into the news on RTÉ. For example, reporters refer to Bertie Ahern being in London to meet Tony Blair and they ask people what they think he will say to Tony Blair. This is sad. These men are Prime Ministers and the media should set a proper standard. They should not use the lowest common denominator or corner boy language. They should state that the Taoiseach is in London and they should ask people what they think he will say to the Prime Minister of Britain.
The media obviously thinks that lowering their standards will sell more newspapers. However, I am disappointed with the low standards. One often reads an article in a newspaper and sees "f***" or "s***". Why is there a need for this type of dirty, base language in newspapers that are supposed to be leading public opinion and showing an example to our youth? What can one expect if that type of language is used? Is that what students are learning in schools of journalism today? If so, we are taking a road to very low standards.
Another speaker referred to the tactic of attacking somebody who is dead to sell more newspapers. We all know that one should let the dead rest. If one did not speak well of them, one did not speak ill of them. However, it is sad that journalists write articles and dig up information on people who gave a lifetime of good service and who are not in a position to defend themselves. A poem states, "If you think that praise is due me, now is the time to give it to me for I cannot read a tombstone when I am dead." It is also scandalous and sad that their families and relatives cannot defend them. This is another reason that something must be done about the way journalists operate.
Journalists who cover the House full-time are constructive and make fair comment. The problem lies with freelances, people one never sees around the Houses. One reads an article in a newspaper and one wonders who is the person who wrote it because one never saw him or her around the Houses.
Some priests did despicable and terrible things, but the majority of priests and the clergy in Ireland did wonderful work throughout the years. Thousands did good work, but they are all being tarred with the one brush. I have no friends or relations who are priests or nuns, but I wish to be fair. They nursed our predecessors when they were sick and they built hospitals and schools. If it was not for them, Ireland would still be a Third World country. Many people owe their education to the sacrifices made by those people. It is scandalous to hear people say that they are all the same. This type of throw-away, corner boy language should not be used. The media should get rid of short-term contracts and employ proper journalists. They should get weekly wages and be allowed to do their jobs.
The cause of the recent controversy is that the editor and sub-editors condoned the article and allowed it to be printed. They went on air and said people could have a right of reply. However, they were trying to create controversy to sell more newspapers. Thankfully, the people were more alert and gave them their answer. More people must give the media their answer. Many families have been blackguarded by the media over the years. If a member of a family gets into trouble, there is no reason that the whole family should be affected. What do young children face at school? How do they meet others? What type of abuse do they receive? The media is responsible for this.
Many people commit crimes but one does not hear about them. However, if they are related to a politician, a priest, a nun or a teacher, they get more attention than they deserve. Headlines are used to sell more newspapers. These headlines include "Teacher's nephew" or "TD's nephew" or "TD's first cousin". Why must the media drop to such a low base and common denominator?
The Government should take action with regard to privacy laws to protect people who are not involved in cases. If somebody in public life does or says something wrong, he or she should face the consequences. However, our wives and families should not be ridiculed or harangued in newspapers or have their photographs featured.
Another sad aspect of this issue is when tragedies occur. Television cameras should not be allowed to interfere and to photograph people at funerals and gravesides when they are at their weakest from loneliness and sorrow. The burial of the dead is a matter for the bereaved; it is not a matter of public interest. We should give people privacy. Such conduct at funerals should be outlawed.
Mary Ellen Synon has done a good job because she has given the people a chance to air their views. I hope the media prints some of what is said here today but I doubt if they will.
I join my colleagues in welcoming this debate which stirs emotions in much the same way as Mary Ellen Synon's article did. Senator Farrell is right in that she has, in an obtuse way, done us all a service by raising public awareness of our attitudes to how the press treats those who are less able in our society at a time when disabled athletes are striving with might and main to achieve their own level of personal success in the Paralympics. The timing of this motion is right.
This is not the first time we have had such a debate in this House. It seems they are cyclical in nature. It is surprising, despite the important words contributed on all sides of the House to this weighty matter of how the press should treat certain issues, that we do not seem to have advanced a great deal. From the first day I came into the House I have heard about press councils and impositions being placed on the freedom of the press to express its opinion in various areas. I have also heard the views of an equally vociferous lobby, the newspaper industry, about what it perceives to be archaic libel laws which prevent it from expressing what it would like to express in a democracy. It is in that context that I would like to deal with this motion.
I am a practising journalist, although I do not operate in the current affairs area. I have always operated in the sport and music areas both in the print media and in broadcasting. Nonetheless, I am aware of the code of ethics of the National Union of Journalists. I am also aware of the parameters by which one must abide in expressing opinions on the public airwaves or in the printed media. Notwithstanding that, I stand firmly on the side of the free press. If we introduce censorship, we will embark on a rocky road to a time when we can reflect on similar regimes in the early part of the century when a free press stood as a bulwark against fascism and evil. They are the thoughts which go through my mind when I hear people railing against the excesses of the press. There are excesses in the media, but I am not sure that a press council, which would be a self-regulating body, would be anything other than a toothless tiger.
Earlier today on the Order of Business I mentioned the threat which a small but significant proportion of video and computer games pose to young children. I raised that issue in the context of self-regulation by the industry. However, self-regulation is not the answer to this weighty question. The Government of the day must balance the right of a free press against the right of privacy, as Senator Farrell so eloquently put it.
There is no justification for cameramen sticking their lenses into the faces of bereaved relatives of victims to sell more newspapers. There is nothing justifiable about a columnist using a free press to express opinions which are repugnant to the majority of people. It is not just that it is repugnant because that in itself should be defended. Voltaire said: "I don't accept the gentleman's point of view, but I will fight to the death to defend his right to say it." What is at issue here is the boundaries within which a free press should operate.
As a politician, I have sometimes been sickened by the high moral tone adopted by certain leader writers and columnists who have been quick to point out our responsibilities to the public and to criticise if we have on occasion stumbled because we are all human, but who have not looked at the mote in their own eye. I know a number of newspapers have attempted over the years to provide a platform for aggrieved readers. However, it is the old story that if one smears someone on page one, there is not much point in burying it on the bottom of page six with a small paragraph of apology as the person has already been smeared. That is the type of offensive, unacceptable and objectionable journalism we are talking about here and that the Government, if it is so inclined, must tackle. It is a case of cutting out the cancer and leaving the body politic intact. That is the dilemma for any Government in a free society.
Our libel laws have been the subject of a great deal of press comment. I sometimes reflect on the opinions being expressed about our so-called archaic libel laws. I have often wondered about changing the laws along the lines the newspaper industry has suggested, but it has fogged the argument so often I am not sure exactly what it wants changed.
One example that was used as a justification for changing the libel laws is the matter before a tribunal in this city. The newspapers screamed that if the libel laws were changed or had been different some years ago, the allegations of bribery and corruption would have been exposed by a free press. What does that mean? Does it mean the press would have been allowed to carry banner headlines which named names, to make public allegations against public representatives and civil servants without any sanction and to act as judge, jury and executioner before due process? I sometimes laugh when I hear journalists today, most of whom have just emerged from the Rathmines college of journalism and are so wet behind the ears they would not know what good journalism was, claim that if they had a better libel regime they could do things differently. What would be different in terms of that example?
I and many other Members have seen examples of this in the United States where a free press operates in extremis and where, for example, the media can continue to investigate matters before the courts. In some instances, people are condemned long before they have had the opportunity of due process. I would not like to see that happen in this country. I also strongly believe the press has a right to investigate, expose and print. Many editors have looked twice at the old adage, “print and be damned”, whenever they have been advised of libel by their legal advisers.
We have a vibrant investigative media, whether it is in print or broadcast on radio and television. It is one we should cherish and of which we should be proud. If I have any criticism of the print media or of RTE, it is that they have not allowed more programmes of an investigative nature which would have focused on the dark recesses of Irish life. We have come to that rather late, with the child abuse experiences of the past few years, and there have been some excellent programmes and investigative journalism in that area. For a long time, however, the media colluded with the establishment – the establishment can be anything one cares to name – and kept issues from the public. That had very little to do with the libel laws. It was more to do with the nod and the wink and the fact that we are a relatively small country where everybody knows everybody else.
We are also aware of all the approaches that were made to editors of local newspapers to ensure that somebody's name was kept out of the papers. I am sure Members of this House on all sides have had the experience of being approached by people who have gone before the law and asked to put in a word with the editor of the local newspaper to ensure that their name did not go into print. I am not defending that, nor am I supporting it, but I am suggesting, and it is the line I have taken from the outset in this debate, that if we are to cherish and protect a free press, we have to accept it warts and all but within guidelines and parameters. I do not believe that those guidelines and parameters can be self-regulated.
There is a need for legislation not directly aimed at the media but which protects the rights of citizens in a wide range of human activity that would include media intrusion. It would not be in the best interests of this wonderful democracy, which we all cherish and represent to a greater or lesser degree, to attack the media for the sake of it. There are good people who work in the media, as there are good people who work in politics. Essentially we are talking about a balance and if anything were to come out of this debate, it should be that the Government would seriously examine the existing range of legislation and see how it could be improved to ensure that many of the examples that have been put before us today, most recently by Senator Farrell, would not be tolerated under the law and that the press could operate freely under the law.
Nobody is above the law, as we are finding out in the tribunals and elsewhere – and that is as it should be – but in the context of columnists and others who express opinions that are offensive and repugnant to the vast majority of people, as happened in the case of Ms Synon, I would have to question whether it is good for democracy in the long term that we would shoot the messenger just because we did not like the message. Ms Synon has been suitably humbled. Aengus Fanning and the entire Independent editorial board have been equally humbled as a result of people power, and that is as it should be. It was the people of this country who forced an apology out of the Independent board. It was the readers of the Sunday Independent who, in their hundreds, telephoned, faxed and wrote letters to Middle Abbey Street expressing their outrage. It was not the libel laws or legislation which caused it; it was the people, with whom all power ultimately rests.
If we are to continue to defend a free press, it would not be in the best interests of any Government to shackle it to the point where it would be inhibited in expressing its opinions, irrespective of the nature of those opinions. If those opinions cross the line of the law however, the full weight of the law should be brought down upon them.
I would like to share my time with Senator Glennon.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ag tarlú. Ó tháinig mé isteach sa Seanad tá an t-ábhar seo tar éis teacht chun tosaigh go minic. Tá an-chuid daoine sa tír seo atá gortaithe de bharr na meán cumarsáide, daoine nach raibh an chumhacht acu nó nach raibh struchtúr nó fóram ann dóibh.
Tá sé tábhachtach ní amháin go mbeadh an díospóireacht seo ann ach go mbeadh moltaí ag teacht ar aghaidh féachaint conas is féidir an scéal a fheabhsú. Tá a fhios agam nár tháinig aon mholadh os ár gcomhair go dtí seo do chomhairle preas nó aon rud mar sin ach tá súil agam nach rófhada go dtí go mbeidh a leithéid i gceist. Faoi láthair tá an chonspóid chun tosaigh i gcónaí sna meáin chumarsáide, is cuma leo go minic an bhfuil na fíricí go léir acu. De réir dealraimh is í an iomaíocht an príomhrud atá i gceist, agus a bheith in ann a gcuid den mhargadh a choimeád ó thaobh airgead a dhéanamh. Ar an ábhar sin, tá súil agam go mbeidh seans againn go luath caint níos doimhne a dhéanamh ar chomhairle preas a bheith againn.
A few weeks ago on the Order of Business, I availed of the opportunity to make reference to the story in the Sunday Independent regarding the Kilkenny tragedy. I did so because I felt absol utely outraged, as I know many people did at that time, that even before the funerals of the misfortunate victims had been concluded, a paper took it upon itself to examine what it considered to be the private lives of the victims. They must have realised that printing that material on such a sad occasion, or indeed at any time, would be offensive and hurtful to the relatives who were still alive. It appears that they weighed this against the balance of sensationalism and obviously decided that they had a scoop which would improve their market share where the selling of newspapers was concerned.
On that morning I said it was evident that the media was now pushing out the parameters of decency, but it was not only at that time that this was evident. Over the past decade or more, we have seen these parameters being pushed out more and more and those who are suffering are, by and large, helpless people who cannot defend themselves. That would certainly be the case in terms of the people who had died so tragically. On that morning I made the point that when the legal advisers of the Sunday Independent were discussing the libel aspects of any coverage for that weekend, they would have decided that printing a similar story about people who were still alive would not be wise because there would be the possibility that a court would find against them. There was cowardice involved here. In other words, they were prepared to do what they did simply because the people involved were dead and could not defend themselves.
Journalism is a fine profession. Many of us can remember a national newspaper whose logo was "Truth in the News". Truth in the news meant precisely that, and it was not always because of fear of litigation that a newspaper decided not to print a story. There was a decency on the part of the people who knew they had a particularly powerful weapon at their disposal in the media that they should not misuse. That was the basis of it. Today the only basis on the part of many journalists for not misusing the power they have is that they are afraid of litigation. If that is the case, there is a strong argument to be made for a press council. I would argue that a press council would be to the benefit of the media because people do not have the opportunity of expressing, in any proper way, reaction to what is happening in the media. One might say that they have the opportunity of writing a letter to an editor but we all know that even those letters are edited. We never know the number of pro or anti letters that are received on any issue. Power remains with the editor and members of the public are not given the opportunity to respond when they feel strongly.
Where are people to turn in such circumstances? One can put forward the old argument that one does not have to buy the newspaper. That is negativity taken to an extreme as we want newspapers and a free press. Another option is to go to court. However, who would consider going to court against a newspaper, with its multi- million pound backing, particularly if one was helpless to start with and did not have the wherewithal to take a case to the District Court, let alone the High Court? Such opportunities do not exist.
Self-regulation has been proposed on many occasions. However, when the NUJ did not react to the Kilkenny or Paralympic stories it was evident it had no intention of laying down markers for its members when it came to common decency. In such circumstances self-regulation goes out the window.
The NUJ's role is more important than collecting membership fees, providing legal advice or seeking better working conditions. One never sees the second part of that equation coming into play whereby the NUJ considers its responsibility to the public. Journalists have a responsibility to the public because democracy has given them the right to free speech which brings responsibility. I hope this debate will provide an opportunity to discuss structures. It is vital that we have an independent council.
Having raised this issue before, and having responded to this debate, I would not want the media to think that Members are interested in media bashing. I am not interested in such pursuits. I have the highest regard for the profession and appreciate what the media has done. However, it is not in the interest of the public, journalists, the media itself or the morale of the country that journalists should abuse the privilege they enjoy. I hope we will see a positive proposal as a result of this debate.
I thank Senator Ó Murchú for sharing time and join him in expressing the wish that this debate should be positive and be seen as a constructive contribution on the controversy which has been in the air for a number of weeks.
I have some interest in this debate as I am a part-time columnist with a competing Sunday newspaper and a regular sports contributor on radio and television. I doubt if the Paralympic team will appreciate further sympathy, but I empathise with its members on the difficulty which has arisen. To represent one's country in sport is a hugely pleasurable moment. It is also a memory and an honour which will last, not only for one's lifetime, but which also reflects positively on one's immediate family and friends. This is particularly the case regarding the Paralympic team where the reflection on the immediate families is even stronger than in the normal sporting arena. The members of that team deserve great credit, not only for being the best in the country, which is always a source of pride, but also for competing on the world stage and showing they are at the top of their sports at international level. This is an achievement of immense merit and deserves to be recognised as such.
If I may be slightly parochial, in a perverted sort of way one of my constituents, Catherine Walsh from Swords, who won the silver medal in the pentathlon, may have been an inspiration, if that is the correct word, for Ms Synon's article which gave rise to much of this controversy.
I was interested in Senator Maurice Hayes's contribution not only in this debate, but on the Order of Business when this matter was originally raised. I commend the Senator's attitude, particularly in light of an apparent conflict of interest, given his membership of the board of Independent Newspapers.
I would ask three questions about the article in question. First, who is responsible for proof reading articles and was this article proof read? I do not accept the apology of an editor who admits he had not read the article before the newspaper was published. The editor is paid to ensure that these articles are proof read. If he did not do so personally, someone under his control should have done so and, I presume, did.
Second, was any disciplinary action taken against the individual concerned, or was he or she even taken to task? Third, does the editor realise the folly of his predicament? I ask these questions because I am a cynic in this regard. The controversy which has erupted is to the benefit of the newspaper concerned and this is the real issue we must address as legislators.
I join Senators Farrell and Henry in distinguishing between the role of the reporter and the role of the commentator. The Sunday newspapers, particularly in recent times, have generated a commentary industry. By and large reporters do an extremely good job. However, speaking as a commentator, it seems that commentators are wheeled in to generate controversy. The controversial articles which have caused difficulties over the past few years have, by and large, been generated by commentators and part-time contributors, not by staff reporters. This highlights the fact that while newspapers originated from a worthy concept, their role has exploded beyond all recognition, particulary when one takes radio and television into account. There is no doubt that the mighty dollar and profit are the bottom line in all of these enterprises.
I agree with Senators who spoke about reviewing controls on the media. The establishment of a press council, the laws of defamation and such issues are worthy of discussion, which has been ongoing for some years. However, the only answer to this difficulty is the support of the public in purchasing the newspapers concerned and the organisations which spend huge sums of money advertising in them. I refer in particular to the role of semi-State organisations in this issue. We may have all kinds of nice ideas about reviewing the role of the press and all kinds of academic debates about it and the review process will continue, but, unfortunately, it will continue to be bogged down in semantics.
The reality is that politicians, as we are so often reminded, have a leadership role in society and I would urge all politicians involved directly or indirectly in placing advertising in these organs to seriously consider their position in this regard on an ongoing basis. Too much advertising appears to be placed on a weekly basis without due regard to the nature of the publication in which it is being placed.
More importantly, I urge the public to give vent to their grievances. No doubt they were offended seriously by the article. It is not enough just to give vent to their grievances by writing to that newspaper or by telephone on the national airwaves. That only adds further to the controversy and is grist to the mill for the publishers of the original offending article. In the same way that we as legislators must give a lead, the public must be prepared to bite the bullet and leave the subsequent issues of the newspaper on the news-stand or switch off the offending radio or television programme. It is no good simply to contribute to the debate and exacerbate the controversy. Legislators and the public have a role to play. We have all talked the talk in the past few weeks, we should now walk the walk. The legislators should consider seriously replacing their advertising contracts and equally the public must consider whether the particular organ is worthy of support. That is the only way this particular problem will be addressed in the short term.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate her on the fine work she has been doing for people with disabilities and others. That work should not go without recognition.
The motion reads:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to review the safeguards available to it in light of the recent media coverage of the Kilkenny tragedy and the Paralympics issue.
The week before last I raised this on the Order of Business and asked that a broader debate would take place here on the question of media and the libel laws, the need to reform the libel laws and provide a balance to ensure there are no abuses in the system of media coverage. This motion on the coverage of the Kilkenny tragedy and Miss Mary Ellen Synon's article has probably a narrower focus than that I envisaged for a general debate on the media. Nevertheless I join in the expressions of concern, criticism and horror at the article in the Sunday Independent, which I read. The author lives in Cork but I do not know her personally.
The article was most offensive. To make an attack in such a vein on an element of society, people who have an certain disability and who, as previous speakers said, have done the country, their associations and all of us proud, was nothing short of scurrilous. Like Senator Glennon, I would ask who proof read the article. I am sure there are a number of people involved in this work in the newspaper concerned. Were it not for the subsequent intense coverage by a number of RTE radio correspondents, the editor of this newspaper would not have been so forthcoming in his apology, which took 48 or 72 hours to evolve. This, in itself, was a rather tardy and inadequate response.
I am not sure how this newspaper can compensate the Paralympics team for the damage caused. The Paralympics team and people with disabilities in Ireland deserve serious compensation of some sort from the newspaper concerned and I would suggest that should be forthcoming.
I recognise the need for press freedom, which is enshrined in the Constitution. Some 95% of journalists and media commentators, whether on radio or television, act professionally and do excellent work but there are a few bad apples among them. In the past ten or 15 years, a number of cheap-shot journalists have crept into the country and they are doing severe damage to the industry as a whole.
I would also concur with the condemnation of the coverage of the Kilkenny tragedy. This incident was a terrible disaster and a terrible family tragedy. The coverage, as Senator Ó Murchú stated, even before the family was buried, was also scandalous and deserved to be condemned.
I deal with local press from time and time in the course of my court work. In most cases when a sad situation emerges, where a young fellow is convicted and maybe his father is terminally ill in hospital, where a person has suffered a family bereavement or where somebody drowned or was killed in a car accident, the journalists are courteous enough to sit back and say that they are aware that it is a particular crisis. This leads me to believe that in such circumstances the vast majority of journalists would be prepared not to write a story which would make a bad situation worse. A case involving a young fellow convicted of breaking and entering who gets a three month sentence or a case involving a family row could get a headline which could do further injury. In court work and as a politician, I have dealt with perhaps a dozen or 15 journalists and, by and large, they are sensitive when sensitivity is required.
On the point Senator Ó Murchú made today and made forcefully two weeks ago on the Order of Business, I concur that we need what he called a press council or what I might call a press or media ombudsman. I condemn the deafening silence of the National Union of Journalists for not coming out, particularly in the case of Miss Mary Ellen Synon's article, and saying that one of its members has sinned and "mea culpa”, so to speak. It has closed ranks and protected its member completely.
At the same time the NUJ is constantly demanding reform of the libel laws. That might be a worthy call. The Law Reform Commission commissioned a report on the matter some time ago, but my reservation regarding reform of the libel laws is that on the one hand the NUJ, the media and, particularly, the newspaper owners, who are the real financial beneficiaries, want reform and want us to limit the damages given in High Court libel actions, etc. On the other hand, however, I have never heard a request or demand for self-regulation, particularly in this area, in the form of a media council, press council or ombudsman.
In the current climate in the wake of the recent disastrous debacle of reporting on the two incidents mentioned today, it is difficult for the Government to suggest introducing legislation to reform the libel laws. All it would achieve would be to satisfy the demands of the moguls who own the newspapers and who have to cough up when libel awards are made against them to limit awards. That is the demand – that we need to reform the libel laws because by doing so, we will restrict or cap the sometimes substantial financial awards given to people who have to fight the media. As a previous speaker mentioned – I think it was Senator Mooney – if an individual, group or organisation, whether in Kilkenny, Cork or elsewhere, is hurt by and defamed in a media article which contains libellous information, they are generally financially helpless in taking on the might of the media.
The number of times newspapers have to print apologies and defend themselves in court means that a lot of work is given to barristers and senior counsel but I think newspapers sometimes bring it on themselves. It is very easy to destroy somebody's character in three or four lines or in a headline of a newspaper but it is almost impossible to restore it. The same could be said of the people on the Paralympic team. What they have achieved shows such determination because they are not starting from the same point as fit people like us. They went to Australia and did this country proud.
I remember listening to the radio one morning when a woman was telephoned by a reporter from Radio Éireann to say her son had won a gold medal. To listen to that would have brought tears to a glass eye. The mother could not believe it happened. She first heard the message live on radio at about 7.30 a.m. It had been relayed to Radio Éireann and the reporter in question rang the mother to convey the good news. The delight in her voice indicated what she had gone through with her son and the effort that had been made during those days and weeks of training, travelling and so on. To have the Paralympics rubbished in an article in a leading newspaper was very sad. I am not sure how that newspaper or indeed that reporter – I suppose in one sense one feels sorry for the reporter in question – can compensate, never mind about the courts, or make good in some small way the damage they have done to people with disabilities.
I compliment the Government and the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, on the fact that in the past two years – although, in fairness, some of the work was commenced by the last Government – the Equal Status Act, 2000, was brought in. Ironically, it came into force three days after this famous Sunday Independent article was published. The Employment Equality Act, 1998, came into effect on 18 October and the National Disability Authority was set up in the past year. These are major strides which are not before time. Politicians and the Government have taken the bull by the horns. They have, under statute, given recognition to people with disabilities and have given them equal rights to any other citizen, to which they are entitled and which they deserve. Major strides have been made by the Government, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue.
We were often criticised for being slow – for example, when reform was needed or when legislation had to be brought in, the Oireachtas was slow to react and it took five or maybe ten years before the legislation passed through the Houses and came into effect. The Government has acted, as have the Dáil and Seanad, in the past three or four years. They have moved forward and recognised people with disabilities and have passed supportive legislation. Yet in one fell swoop, a leading newspaper has brought a lot of that work tumbling down.
As far as I am concerned, that might have been the inadvertent thrust of the article. I speak for most Members of the House and for the Minister when I say that we have no intention as politicians of being knocked down in this way. We have come a long way in bringing in supportive legislation which was debated and trawled through this House on many evenings. There were also many votes on issues. I say clearly to the Sunday Independent or any newspaper that wishes to report disparagingly on or in a way which would damage a weaker sector of our community that they will not get away with it.
As some of the other speakers have said, the sad irony is that the Mary Ellen Synon article may increase the coffers of the newspaper concerned. It is sad that the result of a disastrous report in a leading newspaper will be that the coffers of media moguls will be increased and enhanced. Before calling for reform of our libel laws, I reiterate my heartfelt demand for the urgent need to set up a media council or to appoint a media ombudsman with power, who can take on or control in some way and maybe impose sanctions on people who deliberately do damage to the National Union of Journalists and to the media in general.
In my opening remarks I said that 95% or 96% of all the journalists whom I meet are decent people. It is a profession I admire. I have a daughter who is in college and is hoping to go on to do journalism. There are some bad apples and there must be controls and restrictions. As it stands, there is no regulation of the media. No sanction has been imposed on the newspaper concerned or on the journalist in question of which I am aware. When serious and libellous matters are set out in newspapers, there should be some retribution. There should be some come-back for the people who have been seriously offended. It is very easy to bring a person's name into disrepute but it is very difficult to restore it. I ask the National Union of Journalists to rethink its strategy and consider the position. The people who own newspapers and who eventually pay up in libel actions want reform. Before urging the Government to introduce legislation to reform the libel laws, there should be evidence that the media is in a position to control itself. This should be a prerequisite to any reform of the libel laws.
I called last week for a debate on the issue of the media, journalism, the libel laws and so on. This debate was sparked by the article in the Sunday Independent and the demand by Senator Ó Murchú arising from the insensitive reporting of the Kilkenny tragedy, which was very sad. There is a broader debate but journalists, their unions and newspaper proprietors need to move first to give confidence to the public.
Many interesting comments were made during this debate. Senator Manning raised many interesting issues, including whether lessons have been learned from what occurred in recent weeks. He referred also to the promise by the media of a commission or ombudsman and his wish that this should happen.
I thank Senators O'Donovan, Moylan, Ormonde and others who outlined the tremendous achievements of the Paralympic athletes and the Irish participants in the sports. Many useful suggestions were made, including those of Senators Henry and Costello. Senator Costello hopes the debate will be the beginning of action and considers it will be worthwhile if this is achieved. Senators Hayes and Cregan made some interesting points. Senators Ó Murchú, Glennon and Farrell referred to the distinction between the various contributors to newspaper articles.
Some Senators raised the issue of the independent review group on the newspaper industry which reported in 1996 to the then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This report covered a range of issues involving the press. These included competition, taxation and the defamation laws. The then Government decided that responsibility for each recommendation should devolve to each Minister with a function and responsibility for the area. During a debate in the Seanad on 10 May, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, referred to his role in relation to the laws on libel, defamation and other matters, including the ownership and control of the newspaper industry and the involvement of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for the review of the defamation laws. I assure Senators that the review is being undertaken and the publication of a defamation Bill is expected some time next year. I cannot, therefore, speak in detail on the matter at this stage but I assure Senators that the Bill will be coming to the Oireachtas.
The press has made many linkages between the recommendations of the 1996 review group undertaken by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the fact that there should be a press ombudsman, funded by the industry, and the completion of the review of the defamation laws. It is the clear view of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that this linkage is over-stated and that there is no reason more work could not be done to pave the way for an ombudsman for the press, funded by the industry, as recommended by the 1996 review group and Senators during the debate today.
No doubt the many issues raised during the debate by Senators will be scrutinised closely by the media and perhaps the media will consider seriously what action it should now take. Given that the review of the defamation laws is proceeding, when the debate is concluded it would be appropriate for the Oireachtas to return again to the issue of the press and the legislative reforms.
I thank Senators for their support for my area of responsibility, that is, the basic right of people with disabilities to be treated equally and to ensure that a clear message is sent out from the Oireachtas that the prejudices of the past are not acceptable and that we will continue to work for equality and inclusiveness for those with disabilities.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.