I want to thank all members of the Seanad for their most constructive approach to this Bill. I am extremely grateful to all Senators for their suggestions and for their attitude in discussing this Bill. There are a number of suggestions which have been made which I should like to accept but which are not quite feasible, purely from a practical point of view.
Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that probably a lot of the difficulties I met in the Dáil were due to my own bad stage management. I think there is, perhaps, a lot in that, though I meant to be reasonable in explaining the Bill in the other House on the Second Reading. If Senator Mrs. Concannon has time to look at the debates, I think she will see that I was not particularly unreasonable. Where, I think, I did badly stage-manage this Bill was in assuming that both members of the Dáil and members of the Seanad knew a lot more of what I had in mind than I explained to them. That arose from the fact that, from having been mixed up with newspapers and news agencies for a great many years, I took too much for granted.
I think Senator Mrs. Concannon and some of the other Senators were under the impression that the news agency would issue a bulletin in the nature of the bulletins that are issued by various legations or Governments. That is not what was visualised. As I expressed it in the Dáil, I would feel quite satisfied if the news agency transmitted approximately 500 to 1,000 words a day to the various newspapers of the world. May I put it this way? In America, there are between 3,000 and 4,000 newspapers. Before we can complain that papers do not give us a fair show, that papers do not publish our viewpoint, that papers publish distorted news, we must put on the news desks of these 3,000 to 4,000 newspapers, news about Ireland which is truthful, which is correct and which represents Ireland in a proper light; so that, in approaching the question of publicity, there are certain steps.
Before you can complain at not being properly represented abroad, the first step is to put on the news desks of all the newspapers a report which they can publish. That is one phase of the work. The second phase of the work is to try to get as much of your news taken from the news desk and put into the page of the paper. That is where I think Senator Hawkins also was somewhat under a misapprehension. That is where your Press Attachés and other people come in. The news agency gets the news on the news desk of these papers. Your Press Attachés try to get that news from the news desk into the papers. In other words, through contacts with papers, columnists, and so on, they try to arouse their interest in various problems for which we want to secure publicity, but it is quite a separate and distinct phase of news distribution.
If you apply it in a more local sense, just visualise our own papers here. They receive a stream of news the whole time. They probably receive three or four times more news than they publish. Somebody has to select that news and if there is some particular thing you want to get published, there is no use talking to the reporter. He sends in his copy but, actually, if you want to get something into the papers with a particular angle, you have to approach the higher reaches of the newspaper office. Accordingly, the main task of the news agency will be to place on the news desks of, as I have said, between 3,000 and 4,000 papers in America, a regular supply of news which can be published.
Straight away I will grant you that probably 75 per cent. of that will never see daylight but I am quite satisfied if 25 per cent. sees daylight and is published. It will serve, first of all, the purpose of getting Irish news published more frequently than it is at the moment. In the second place, it will be a source of information to which newspapermen all over the world can turn when they want to learn what the Irish viewpoint is. When some particular crisis affecting Ireland develops, the newspaper editor, subeditor, political correspondent or columnist may at the moment want to learn what our viewpoint is but he has no way of finding it unless he goes to the trouble of ringing up the Irish Legation or getting a bulletin of some kind and that, usually, he is not prepared to do and, therefore, he will accept what he sees from the other news agencies.
Concern has been expressed by Senator Professor Stanford and, I think, by Senator Hawkins at the possibility that this might have an adverse effect on some of our own journalists here—that if the Irish News Agency supplies news about Ireland, it may in effect be doing journalists here out of work. Bear in mind that at the moment there are at least five news agencies operating from here and sending news out from Ireland. That has not affected the livelihood of any Dublin journalists. On the contrary, I think the more news agencies you have, the more competition you have and the more work there is for them. Apart from the news agencies, properly speaking, there are a number of correspondents here for foreign papers but their particular work is more or less specialised. They do special reporting for the paper. They cover special stories. They have their own particular angle on the news and these papers will certainly continue to employ their own special correspondents here. As a matter of fact, the more this news agency is successful in putting Ireland on the map, the more will papers be likely to want to have their own correspondent here. If we are sufficiently successful in putting Ireland properly on the map, there will be a tendency for big papers to have their own representative here.
Senator Ó Buachalla, Senator Hawkins and Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that the name of the news agency should be given in Irish. This is one case where I would say "No", that there would be little or no sense in that. Irish, however much it is spoken here—and it is not as much spoken as we would all like to see it —is certainly not spoken outside the country and if we sent out copy with the name of the news agency in Gaelic to America, Australia and a great many other countries, they would not have the faintest idea where it came from, or even what it was. There are 230,000,000 people whose principal language is English and, in addition, there are 550,000,000 who speak English as their second language, and I think we should avail of that. Likewise, if we had an office in France, for instance, or in Italy, I take it that we would use French or Italian and describe the Irish news agency in the French or Italian language, as the case might be; but why adopt a language which is a language not understood by the people where that news is circulated? I take it that the rule will be that the language used will, as far as possible, coincide with that of the country of circulation.
I am extremely grateful for the realistic attitude adopted by Senators as to the possible inadequacy of the financial provisions visualised, as well as the warning note that we should not expect too much too quickly from it. I certainly will be quite prepared to be ready to modify or vary the policy behind the news agency to meet the changing circumstances of the time and I shall be very glad at all times to have any suggestions that any member of the Oireachtas may wish to make in that connection.
Senator Fearon made a number of suggestions and laid down certain guiding principles in relation to the distribution of news by this agency. He emphasised the necessity for truthfulness, verification and accuracy. These are extremely important, because there is nothing that can destroy a news agency more rapidly than exaggeration or inaccuracy, so that, so far as I can influence it, I will ensure that the news is verified and is accurate and truthful.
Senator J.T. O'Farrell dealt with the question of the stage Irishman presentation. That is a presentation from which we suffer quite a lot and it is largely due, I think, so far as the Press is concerned, to the fact that a lot of the news about Ireland is not written in Ireland. It is very often written from a desk in Fleet Street or somewhere else by some journalist who has to write his copy. He does not know very much about Ireland, but he heard in a pub around the corner a funny story about an Irishman and that makes his copy, which will be sent off under a Dublin date-line.
Senator Douglas was, I think, rather indignant because a journalist told him on one occasion when being interviewed that if he did not talk and give an interview, it was just too bad but the journalist would have to make up the interview himself. That is not very unnatural. The journalist has to earn his living. His job is to write. He gets instructions from his news editor or chief reporter: "Go out and get an interview with Senator Douglas or with X and Y." Is he to go back to his chief reporter and say: "Sorry, boss; I went out, but I did not get my interview?" If he does that a few times, he will not be very long on the paper, and so the tendency of a journalist, when told to write up a story, is to write it whether he knows anything about it or not. He will do the best he can to give an accurate account, if he can get it, but, if not, he will have to make it up from whatever sources are available to him.
Senator Douglas made one very important suggestion not applicable to the News Agency Bill as distinct from the other State-sponsored corporations, that is, that some machinery should be created to take the place of shareholders' meetings. That is a very important suggestion and one which deserves the attention of the House, and indeed of the Oireachtas as a whole, and of the Government. There is in the Bill a provision which enables either House to debate the affairs of the company every year because, under Section 16 (4), a copy of the balance sheet must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas each year. It is then open to the House to put down a motion, but, quite apart from that, I agree entirely with Senator Douglas that the time has been reached when it has become necessary that some machinery should be evolved to deal with all State-sponsored companies and to enable complaints and grievances from members of the public as shareholders to be investigated publicly.
This is a matter with which we cannot deal in this Bill, but I am very glad it was raised here, because I think the time has come when such machinery must be devised. It often occurred to me that one of the best ways of doing it would be to set up, as has been done in many other countries, an administrative court whose function it would be to examine the accounts and to hear complaints in respect of State-sponsored bodies.
The modern tendency—I think it is a tendency which cannot be resisted; it is inevitable—is towards socialisation. This involves a certain degree of nationalisation and State ownership. The only way in which this tendency can be prevented from becoming a complete bureaucracy is by having some form of check on the activities of the nationalised or State-owned bodies.
Senator Douglas suggested that this might be done through a Joint Committee of both Houses. I do not know whether that would be a very efficient way of doing it. I feel that the work would take a considerable amount of time and that members of the Oireachtas are already overburdened with their ordinary parliamentary duties and would not be able to devote the time necessary to it. I therefore think it might possibly be better to evolve some form of judicial investigation, taking the shape of an administrative court whose function it would be to examine the accounts of all State-owned companies yearly and to receive complaints from members of the public or from public bodies.
Senator Stanford mentioned the possibility of confusion between the name "Irish News Agency" and the Irish News in Belfast. I do not think that is very likely to arise. The news emanating from the Irish news agency will be circulated abroad. It is unlikely that any confusion would arise, but as Senator Stanford remarked, there could be quite a lot of difficulty in finding another name that would not trespass on some preserves. Senator Stanford mentioned another matter which is extremely useful and constructive; that is, the question of trying to evolve some form of training, some form of co-ordination for our own journalists which would give them an opportunity of acquiring experience abroad. I do not think it will be possible to do that through the medium of the news agency, but I think it is a thing that should be kept in mind and I, certainly, shall examine the position in my Department to see if anything can be done to develop some scheme along those lines. I do think that journalists here are not sufficiently organised among themselves as a body. I know that tremendous progress has been made over the last few years in their, if you like, trade union organisation, but I always feel that there should be a greater degree of contact between them on a professional basis, irrespective of a purely trade union basis.
May I revert for one second to a point made by Senator Hawkins in relation to the necessity for Press Attachés? We realise the necessity for Press Attachés very clearly, and we hope to be able to appoint one or two Press Attachés in the near future to the principal posts. They will be on the diplomatic staff and their job, in fact, will be to have contact with the upper reaches of the newspaper world in the particular country where they operate, not actually to supply news to the news desks. I should mention that we have at the moment a number of bulletins being issued by the Department. The information division of the Department issues a regular bulletin, which is circulated all over the world to our missions, and through our missions, to those people who we think would be likely to be interested. Apart from that, our legation in Washington also issues a weekly bulletin and on occasions a bi-weekly bulletin. I think the circulation of that bulletin runs into something like 5,000 or 6,000 once a week and it reaches important people in America, Irish-Americans, members of Congress, members of the State Legislature, journalists and so on. Likewise, our legation in Australia also produces a separate bulletin.
Senator O'Dwyer and Senator Ó Buachalla referred to the short-wave station. Senator O'Dwyer seemed to be under the impression that the short-wave station was being dismantled. Far from that being so, the short-wave station will, I hope, be ready to transmit shortly, and it has not been dismantled. A test I should like Senators to apply in relation to the use of the short-wave station for propaganda purposes and for the dissemination of news is this simple test: does any Senator here ever turn on the short-wave station to listen, say, to the news of Australia, New Zealand or South Africa? He may, possibly, turn on an American station accidentally if he is fiddling around, but does he ever make it his business to listen to the American news every day to know what is going on? I think that as far as our short-wave station is concerned and I am not decrying the idea of it—it is necessary and advisable to have it—it would be very foolish to expect that we will get any propaganda result. Senator Ó Buachalla, I think, mentioned that newspaper editors frequently listen to short-wave news transmissions. My experience of newspaper men, newspaper editors and short-wave transmission is that they will have nothing to do with it. There is a kind of dislike for news. Once you get home you do not turn on the wireless unless you are listening to a match or something like that, which you are interested in.
Senator Séamus O'Farrell raised the question of the qualification and experience of the directors. As far as the directors are concerned. I want to make it quite clear that I am not giving any assurance to the House that the directors will be qualified journalists, any more than the directors of other newspapers are necessarily journalists at all. I do not think that qualifications for directorship of a business concern entail being a journalist. As far as the staff of the news agency is concerned they would, naturally, be journalists. They would be trade union journalists and they would receive trade union rates of pay and remuneration and, so far as the State has any connection with the news agency, it should always act the part of the good employer. But, as far as the directors are concerned, I do not visualise that they will be necessarily journalists.