Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister said that diversity of content and ownership across the media remains an important part of a healthy democratic society and I fully agree with him. However, he also said that he was retaining the basic model of current laws based on the principle of avoiding intervention by Government in media ownership, except in specific circumstances following procedures determined by law. I would like to see the Government not taking such a hands-off approach. I would like to see a lot more regulation in this area. Right now, the media in Ireland is in peril. The fact that the ownership of the Irish media is increasingly entering the hands of an elite few spells disaster for the possibility of engendering a vibrant and participatory democracy in this country.

The media and how it is structured does not appear out of nowhere. To quote the media historian Robert McChesney, "The policies, structures, subsidies and institutions that are created to control, direct and regulate the media will be responsible for the logic and nature of the media system". This means that the problem of the media is a political one and a serious debate about media monopolisation and the importance of a well-funded, objective and independent media needs to take place in this House. There is unquestionably a direct link between the control of the media and control over society.

It is interesting then to consider what kind of information the mainstream Irish media disseminates to the public. Last year, Dr. Julien Mercille of UCD published a revealing study that examined how The Irish Times, Irish Independent and Sunday Independent reported financial consolidation and general budget issues from the period of January 2008 to 31 December 2012. The results are startling. Dr. Mercille's research stated:

Significant support for fiscal consolidation [which we must remember is a core aspect of the austerity programme] is clear. In total, there are 431 articles: 236 (55%) are in favour of fiscal consolidation, 50 (12%) against it and 145 (34%) neutral. When neutral pieces are excluded, 83% of articles support fiscal consolidation and 17% oppose it. No time pattern could be detected in the evolution of views on fiscal consolidation, apart from the fact that a larger number of articles appeared towards the end of years (in the months of November and December), which is explained by the fact that this is the time at which the budget is discussed. Out of the 431 articles, 75 are written by outside writers (i.e. not journalists). Of these, 35 (47%) are economists or working in the financial sector, 13 (17%) are high political officials, eight (11%) are academics (excluding academic economists), but only five (7%) are from trade unions and seven (9%) from progressive organisations.

Only a minority of pieces explicitly opposed consolidation itself by calling for a fundamentally different strategy, such as Keynesian economic stimulus. This can be seen in the fact that among all articles, 8% opposed cuts and only 3% stated a preference for increasing government spending.

If only the 50 articles opposed to fiscal consolidation are considered, a similar pattern is found: 54% of them disagree with specific expenditure cuts while 20% suggest that public spending should be increased. The nature of the opposition to fiscal consolidation is therefore based mostly on disagreement with particular cuts, rather than with the principle of consolidation. This suggests that public debate in the media is framed around the ways in which fiscal consolidation can best be implemented, as opposed to comparing and contrasting it with other strategies.

Nevertheless, on economic policy, theIndependent newspapers are ideologically to the right of The Irish Timesand this explains why more opposition to conservative economic policies is likely to appear in the latter rather than in the former. This can be traced, in part, to the fact that The Irish Timesis governed by a trust that ensures some level of independence from commercial interests. For example, it does not have beneficial shareholders and cannot pay dividends. A number of its board directors also come from elite institutions. Like other newspapers, The Irish Times is dependent on advertising revenue and sales, which veer it to the right.

We must not forget that the media is part and parcel of the political and corporate establishment. Dr. Mercille has also written a paper on the role of the media in sustaining Ireland's housing bubble where he found that news organisations largely sustained the bubble until the property market collapsed. He wrote:

... news content reflects economic and political elites' interests and views. The Irish media can be seen as neoliberalised in line with Ireland's political economy. Over the last several decades, mergers have reduced the number of smaller, independent regional news organisations and increased the concentration of ownership... Both private and State-owned Irish media largely convey establishment views.

The control Denis O'Brien has over the media beggars belief. He holds a 29.9% stake in Independent News & Media, which accounts for 40% of all newspaper sales in Ireland. The said gentleman also controls six radio stations, including Newstalk and Today FM. He controls the Evening Herald, the Irish Independent, Sunday Independent and Sunday World, and co-owns the Irish Star. In addition, he owns 14 regional newspapers, including the Wexford People, New Ross Standard, Enniscorthy Echo and Gorey Guardian, as well as two free newspapers. Mr. O'Brien's ability to shape the news in Ireland is massive as he controls 40% of it. How in God's name can that be healthy for democracy?

Last week in this Chamber, I had the audacity to criticise some aspects of how Independent News & Media operates. I highlighted the fact that it had obtained a bailout of €138 million from the banks, of which almost €16 million fell on the Irish taxpayer. When I was walking out of the Chamber, a Deputy said to me: "Are you mad criticising the Independent? They'll get you." Anyone who was dumb enough to buy The Star yesterday - my life is too short to be reading such rag mags - will discover that they made an effort at getting me. They highlighted the fact that I was going to cost the State money. They did not highlight the fact that I had planning permission for 28 own-door units on that site, which have been sold for less than €20,000 each. If the bank had worked with me, it would not have cost them a fraction of what it is going to cost them now. There is no logic to what has happened. Similarly, there has been no logic to banks selling over 20 of my apartments at a time, which are going to investors for less than half what I could build them for tomorrow. It is also less than half of what the public can buy them for individually. This has a lot to do with rising rents in Dublin. I stressed this matter with the Minister at Question Time this morning. More and more apartments and houses for rent in Dublin are in the control of fewer and fewer people. That is because investors and speculators have bought up huge numbers of them at seriously reduced rates.

One pays a price by daring to challenge these people. I will cite an example from the Minister's area of responsibility. George Monbiot wrote an article about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, in The Guardian- which is a newspaper we can only aspire to here - under the headline "This US trade deal is a full frontal assault on democracy". Mr. Monbiot wrote that "The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations". He also said the TTIP would grant the ability to "big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing." I find it incredible how little coverage there has been of the TTIP in Irish mainstream media. Irrespective of what postilion the Minister or I take, I find it frightening that it is not even being discussed one way or the other. That is really disappointing.

Let us take Shannon Airport. Margaretta D'Arcy went to prison for going on the runway and highlighting the fact that the US military still uses our airport to carry out terrible atrocities in other lands. The State washes its hands of it but so does the media; they are not interested. Margaretta D'Arcy has to go on the runway to highlight the fact that terrible things are happening. Almost 500,000 people have died in Iraq and we are part of it; we have facilitated it.

A UN International Panel on Climate Change reported recently and it was very interesting what it came up with. In fairness to The Irish Times, Frank McDonald gave it good coverage. However, that paper and others are not covering the fact that our Government is going in the opposite direction to what the UN international panel on climate change is saying. We are not interested in this area.

A man telephoned me just after lunchtime today and told me that he went on the Irish Independent website to correct the fact that I was not here for questions yesterday. A number of Deputies were ridiculed in the media for not attending the House for questions. It was an unusual day because our questions came up more quickly than usual as three or four people were missing. Most of the Deputies, from all sides, who were missing for questions were at committees at the time. I was at the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation asking Mr. Richie Boucher some questions on banking for SMEs. I actually did come into the Chamber because the questions came around a second time. Therefore, I was here for my question and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle can verify that.

The man in question went on the Independentwebsite to clarify the fact that I did get here for my question, but they would not allow it and took it down.

The same gentleman e-mailed me some material about Irish Water and the privatisation of water services. He sent me a copy of a letter that was sent to a Greek Minister by Commissioner Olli Rehn's office. It stated:

As you know, privatisation of public companies contributes to the reduction of public debt, as well as to the reduction of subsidies, other transfers or state guarantees to state-owned enterprises. It also has the potential of increasing the efficiency of companies and, by extension, the competitiveness of the economy as a whole, while attracting foreign direct investment.

The Corporate Europe Observatory is a well respected body in Europe. It got hold of the above letter and sought to highlight the fact that the privatisation of water is being challenged in many quarters. It published the following:

The European Commission is deliberately promoting privatization of water services as one of the conditions being imposed as part of bailouts, it has acknowledged in a letter to civil society groups. EU Commissioner Olli Rehn's directorate was responding to questions posed in an open letter concerning the European Commission's role in imposing privatisation through the Troika in Greece, Portugal and other countries. The civil society groups have today written to Commissioner Rehn to demand that he "refrains from any further pressure to impose water privatisation conditionalities".

The Commission's push for privatisation goes against the growing trend in Europe and around the world which has seen water privatisation fail to deliver. Paris and many other cities have recently remunicipalised their water services due to negative experiences with privatisation. The Dutch government in 2004 passed a law banning private sector provision of water supply and the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that any future legislation attempting to privatise public services would be unconstitutional.

The Commission has not put forward any evidence to back its stance in its reply, even though research shows that public provision is often more effective than private. It also violates key articles of the EU Treaty which state that the EU should be neutral on the question of water ownership.

The gentleman to whom I referred earlier also tried to put that material on the Irish Independentwebsite, but it was not allowed either. That is called "control of the news". If one dares to raise one's head above the parapet to challenge the establishment, one can expect to be kicked around by Independent News and Media, which is very powerful. If asked whether the Taoiseach or Mr. Denis O'Brien had the most power in Ireland, most people would say it was my good friend Denis. It should not be like that. The Government should rein him in.

A healthy, independent media would mean so much to this country. It could do so much to improve how our society works. The State should help to fund the media to allow it to be more independent.

See this speech in context