If O'Reilly goes, how independent can INM really be?

THE COMING months may see the departure of Gavin O’Reilly from his position as chief executive of one of Ireland’s largest media companies, Independent News Media (INM).

Such a change would be significant, not least for the fact that it would mark another step in the exit of his father, Sir Anthony O’Reilly (75), once Ireland’s richest man, from the Irish commercial stage. His family has a 13 per cent stake in INM.

It will also mark a significant milestone in the career of Denis O’Brien (53), who is currently the bearer of the title of Ireland’s richest businessman and who has a 22 per cent stake in INM.

(Both Anthony O’Reilly and O’Brien are non-resident here for tax purposes. O’Brien’s former minority partner in Esat Digifone, Dermot Desmond (63), who holds a 5.75 per cent stake in INM, is also non-resident here for tax reasons.)

O’Brien is estimated to be nursing a €500 million loss from his investment in INM and, rightly or wrongly, the O’Reilly camp believes his interest in the group is driven by animus towards them, more than by the pursuit of commercial gain. That this might be the case must be of concern to the rest of INM’s shareholders.

Coverage of the matter in recent weeks, notably in the Sunday Independent, has focused on the Moriarty tribunal’s findings that O’Brien paid money to former communications minister Michael Lowry and that the latter secured a mobile phone licence for Esat. O’Brien has disputed the findings.

The combination of O’Brien’s prominence in terms of Irish media ownership and having been involved with such serious findings is very much a matter of legitimate concern.

It is worth remembering, however, that the same tribunal heard evidence from former taoiseach John Bruton, who said he felt INM had threatened his government (the same one in which Lowry served) with negative publicity if it did not move against pirate TV signal providers who were damaging an O’Reilly commercial interest. O’Reilly told the tribunal he never interfered in editorial matters in INM.

It might also be remembered that a payment from a subsidiary of the O’Reilly-controlled Fitzwilton Group to former Fianna Fáil minister Ray Burke would have been the subject of Mahon tribunal hearings had it not been challenged successfully in the Supreme Court.

The removal of Gavin O’Reilly might not in itself trigger any move by the State to review O’Brien’s prominence in the media sector.

As well as his shareholding in INM, O’Brien owns Today FM, Newstalk, 98 FM and other radio assets. In 2008 the Broadcasting Commission found that his INM and radio holdings combined did not breach its media ownership and control policy, which considers factors such as the ability of an investor to influence media content.

Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton, speaking in the context of the Government’s dealings with people who have been the subject of adverse findings in tribunal reports, has referred to not wanting “a Berlusconi style media-political complex, with its attendant codes of omertà, undermining the principles of transparent democracy”.

However, the idea of Government having a role in saying who owns media assets is contrary to the free expression of opinion that is so important to the functioning of a free and prosperous society.

The best that can be done in pursuit of a free and open media – including one that is not compromised by widespread censorship, whether it be self-censorship by journalists or otherwise – is to have a reasonable limit on the amount of media that can be controlled by one owner. This should be less than O’Brien currently owns.

Hopefully this is something that Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte will introduce in pending legislation on media reform.

Such a measure will not address the problem that arises from having very rich individuals owning powerful media groups, with the almost inevitable editorial bias this could create towards the views and interests of the very rich, as well as the possibility that politicians would seek to curry favour with, or at least do their damndest not to upset, media owners.

But this is a problem all free and open societies continue to struggle with, and one Pat Rabbitte is unlikely to resolve.