Mr. Peter Feeney:

Mechanisms need to be found to provide support for local media because it simply will not have enough resources to be able to carry out its function. I do not have the answer to that. Other countries such as Austria have systems of providing support in terms of distribution and training for local media, etc. These systems do not have any influence or editorial involvement. The chances of local newspapers being able to compete successfully against much more powerful opposition is certainly a source of worry.

The Senator mentioned families of public figures. One of the principles in our code is the right to privacy. While this is not an absolute right and we all respect that, everybody has the right to privacy. If that right to privacy is breached, it has to be in the public interest. In my view, family members of public figures have exactly the same right to privacy as every other citizen. One cannot put in photographs of children of Deputies or Senators, or their wives or husbands, without permission if it is not relevant to the story. The right to privacy is quite strong in the code. One of the areas on which I have pushed is the need for newspaper picture editors to think carefully about why a photograph of a child is there. Is it right that it should be there? What is the context in which that photograph was used? Why is information about the husband or wife of a Deputy or Senator given when it is not relevant to the story? There has been a bit of an improvement in recent years among journalists in their understanding of the right to privacy of family members.

We live in a world where images are just pulled down off social media all the time. I will give a good and possibly hurtful example of that. Some years ago, early in the new year, a number of students from Institute of Technology Carlow were killed in a car crash. The newspapers put up their photographs immediately. All the photographs were taken from their Facebook pages. They all showed them in a sort of party mode. It was not appropriate because this was a very solemn time. It was very distressing for the families. In the past, newspapers would have gone around to the house and asked for a photograph of the son or daughter. They would have been given a photograph which the family thought was appropriate. Nowadays, everything is just pulled down off social media. The tone and context is not right. The Senator might remember the six Irish students who were killed in California when a balcony collapsed. It was the same issue there. The photographs showed them celebrating and being happy at an 18th birthday party or a 21st birthday party. What was needed there was a sober photograph. We have to work hard to make picture editors and editors in general aware that the context is terribly important. If you have an article about a Deputy or Senator, you have to justify giving any information about that person's family. It has to be relevant. If it is not relevant, you need to get their permission to use it because they are private citizens. You have to be very careful about photographing children. I upheld a complaint recently about a picture of a funeral of a criminal. Photographs showed another criminal who was at the funeral. He was holding his child in his arms. They did not pixellate the child’s face. One could argue public interest in showing criminal solidarity. However, one could not argue any justification for including a photograph of the child. It is so easy to pixellate a photograph of children.

Part of my job is to make sure editors are aware of the importance of taking privacy rights into account. Social media has distorted that because it is now so easy to get images. It is so easy to get stories from social media. In my view, we had a very bad breach a couple of years ago when a journalist who was a member of a private WhatsApp group that talked about parenting issues took a story from information that was provided in that private group and published it as an article, without any thought of asking the person who put up the information whether they wanted it published. I thought that was a terrible breach of that person's privacy. It was simply an unjustified piece of journalism. Lessons have to be learned. When mistakes are made, journalists have to be aware that the decision will be published and it will be said in public that they behaved badly and broke the code, etc. Hopefully, then they will behave better in the future. I hope that answers some of the Senator’s questions.