Mr. Peter Feeney:

We average 400 complaints a year, but a proportion of those are misdirected. They are complaints about RTÉ or whatever else. We send them on to the BAI or, if the complaint relates to advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland. I issue, on average, only about 30 formal decisions each year. A lot of our complaints are dealt with by conciliation. Our office comprises only two and a half whole-time equivalents. One of the other people is our case officer. Her job is to try to resolve complaints informally first. That is very effective because a lot of the time there is something inaccurate in a newspaper and as long as the record is correct the person is happy enough. It is easy enough to correct the online record now. Obviously, if the complaint relates to a court case and the complainant does not like the fact that his or her conviction for drink-driving is reported, there is nothing an editor can do about that. That is on the public record and will remain so. If there is something inaccurate, however, that can be changed very quickly. Often all that is required is publication of a letter or, sometimes, a clarification or correction in the next edition of the newspaper. That is an important part of our office. As a previous speaker said, it is not just about fining social media companies; it is about creating a climate in which journalists are answerable and aware that there is a code of practice and that it is important they adhere to it. That helps to improve overall standards of journalism because the first principle is truth and accuracy. I do not know a journalist who does not believe in the value of truth and accuracy because that is where public confidence lies. Of course there will be examples of things being exaggerated and headlines overstating the case, and the sense of outrage may not accurately reflect the degree to which there has been a minor transgression or something like that. Obviously, there are degrees to be considered. Overall, however, my view is that the Irish public are well served by their newspapers. They are generally a very accurate source.

The pandemic is a good example of that. Our work has changed radically in the past two years because we get a large number of complaints about pandemic coverage. The majority of those complaints, however, are from people who are basically opposed to vaccination or measures such as working from home, mask wearing, etc. What they are really doing is expressing their disagreement. They are not able to point me to any breaches of the code because if the journalists report accurately and factually what the situation is, they will not be in breach of the code. It is the message that such complainants do not like rather than the journalism itself. My view - I would say the same of broadcasting as of print - is that in Ireland the pandemic has been well handled and responsibly handled. The press has not ignored the fact that there are people who are opposed to vaccination, the fact that there are people who disagreed with some of the measures taken or the fact that there have been breaches of requirements, but it has, I think, reported them in a balanced and reasonable manner. My view, therefore, is that the pandemic has helped public confidence in traditional media. That is probably contrasted with social media, where most of the claims about the dangers of vaccination etc. and most of the inaccurate claims about Covid are to be found. One of the problems we face with complaints we receive is that the people who complain quote as their sources things they have found on social media that are not reliable. Newspapers will not do that. They will not quote unreliable material.