MANY of the elements in the recent report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry are to be welcomed as issues which relate to the freedom of the society as much as of the media. Other parts of the report leave a great deal to be desired.
First among these is the question of privacy. The terms of reference laid down for the commission required that members consider and make recommendations in respect of "the correct balance between privacy and press freedom, including consideration of the desirability of a mechanism for complaint and adjudication and of changes in the libel laws.
The commission appears to have interpreted its role largely in relation to the requirements of the newspaper industry in obtaining greater protection from defamation actions. The proposal for an ombudsman "to investigate complaints of breaches of press standards" is woefully inadequate, particularly if, as proposed, he or she were appointed by the industry itself.
Freedom of the press is important, but so also is freedom from the press. Undoubtedly, in carrying out its work of exposing the operations of public figures and institutions to the public gaze, the press is hampered by antediluvian libel laws. But it would be foolhardy to relax these laws without taking proper account of the right to privacy.
The commission's report engages in a lot of flannel about the balance to be achieved between the conflicting rights of privacy and press freedom, and in the end decides that there isn't a problem. But there is a problem. In recent years, we have witnessed the escalation of a new form of press "investigation", involving gross intrusion into the private lives of people who, for all that they may be well known, are neither criminals nor "public figures" in the sense of wielding political, economic, social or other overt forms of power. Purely on the basis of their "celebrity", people have been spied upon, violated and invaded at the whim of editors and reporters. Intrinsic to this trend is a growing use of entrapment, spying, and fabrication of interview. Nothing other than public prurience is served by such journalism.
WHILE blandly urging that "legitimate public interest must be distinguished from mere curiosity or an appetite for sensationalism", the commission makes no attempt to deal with this growing problem. On the contrary, it appears to offer licence to newspapers to expand their prurient activities even further by asserting that invasion of privacy "may be justified where the person involved holds public office, deals with public affairs, follows a public career, or has sought or obtained publicity for their activities". Thus, it seems, simply by virtue of being, however reluctantly, in the public eye, someone is disqualified from having his privacy protected.
There should also be concern about the commission's failure to deal adequately with the issue of concentration of ownership. It is worth remembering that the primary purpose in setting up the commission was to deal with the issues thrown up by the closure of the Irish Press, i.e., the attempted takeover of the second largest newspaper group in the State by the owners of the largest newspaper group in the State. How such eventualities are to be avoided in the future is something the commission leaves to our imaginations.
Again, the commission appears to have perceived its main function as relating to protecting the indigenous newspaper industry from external threat. This is a wholesome objective, but unless it also protects us from a massive decline in press standards, I fail to see the benefits of it. The commission, like the Government in the recent past, has attempted to duck the hard questions by placing the argument within the cosy context of competition law.
Irish newspapers have long argued the virtuies of wholesale competition in virtually every area of commerce, from telephones to air travel. And now we are told that "the necessity to strengthen the position of the indigenous newspaper industry without delay must ... be undertaken not merely, as a desirable policy to protect one of our important industries, but rather should be viewed as being so fundamental to the well being of Irish society that it requires special treatment and Unusual measures" (my italics).
I agree with this, but ask simply how it is to be reconciled with competition philosophy. I suspect that if an Irish minister were to take action based on the interest of the indigenous industry, he would be told fairly sharpish that we cannot be a Ia carte Europeans, subscribing to common laws on the things that suit us and crying foul when they do not.
The commission proposes that merger law be amended to extend the powers of the relevant minister to further regulate newspaper takeovers. But given that ministerial reluctance was a contributory factor in the fate of the Irish Press, it is unclear how additional discretion will be helpful in making politicians face the realities of modern press wars.
Again, it is suggested that the minister should assess the implications any intervention would have for "the strength and competitiveness of the indigenous industry in relation to UK titles".
Is the commission telling us that anything, including internal monopoly, is better than external participation in the Irish newspaper market?
IN order to put a finish on its fudge, the report says "concentration of ownership does not necessarily lead to a monolithic view. While plurality of ownership can lead to a diversity of editorial viewpoints, the reverse is not always the case. A large number of titles controlled by the same interest could express a diverse range of views if editorial independence was maintained".
The observation that the ownership by Independent Newspapers of the Sunday World and its half share interest in the Star has had "a marked effect" in curtailing the "imported dominance of the tabloid market", enables us to see where the commission is coming from. We are told that the disappearance of the Irish Press titles "has involved an unwelcome reduction in diversity", and yet the commission pronounces itself satisfied that the remaining newspapers provide "a valuable representation of Irish culture".
It would, however, be "concerned" that any further reduction of titles or concentration of ownership in the indigenous industry "could severely curtail the diversity requisite to maintain a vigorous democracy". And what is the commission's answer in this event? "Ideally", it says, "market demand and entrepreneurial activity should fill the gap".
The report asserts that "the democratic ideal of a free press would be better served by an indigenous newspaper industry which fully reflected a diversity of views". But this tautologous observation brings us back to the reason the commission was established, and nothing in its report suggests how this might be achieved. On the contrary, this report prepares the way for monopoly by the back door. We cannot deal with press freedom on the basis that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.