Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentations they have given on really important issues that are very broad and multifaceted. In her introduction, Ms O'Connell described us as "distinguished" Members of Parliament. It reminds me of a trip I made with Barry Andrews, who is now an MEP, to an Irish Aid project in Africa. We were introduced by our hosts as "extinguished" Members of Parliament. Perhaps we will be in the future.

I will drill down into a few issues, some of which will overlap. On foreign information and manipulation and domestic actors providing misinformation, Dr. Culloty made a very important intervention in response to Deputy Haughey on the question of what objective truth is. We all have our prejudices. Today is objectively Wednesday. Most people would agree with that. However, if I say that Donald Trump is an ignorant narcissist, which I believe to be an objective truth, that can be disputed. People are entitled to their own opinions and evaluations of these things. That is where the political dimension comes in. We often take umbrage at people making assertions that we do not agree with. Although they are entitled to their opinions, these assertions can be distorting. I am interested in any analysis the witnesses have of malign actors outside and within the EU. Again, this was touched upon by Deputy Haughey. A distinction was drawn between the geographies of the European Union and it was noted that, in the eastern parts of the EU and the Baltic states, the activities of Russia are more visible.

We know that from our interactions and the agencies we have established to track that. Is it the case? Are our guests aware of other actors about which we can do something? Within the EU, many people in countries such as Hungary do not believe or subscribe, including at government level, to the norms and values of the European Union. They are entitled to argue their view. How do we deal with that?

As regards domestic actors, some of them are supported from abroad. There is a combination in that regard. In particular, some of the very far-right stuff that is coming from America is in some way supportive of some of the marginal actors that are involved in our politics. I do not wish to sound despairing but in all this I am hearing a broad picture of difficulty with the multimedia platforms we have now. How do we ensure people have objective fact but are entitled to say what they like, as long as it is not unlawful, in a democratic system, which is our big flaw in many ways? That gives them a broad terrain to peddle untruth, if that is their opinion. These are fundamental issues.

Whose responsibility is it to do the fact-checking? From the presentations, it seems the standard media should be the ones responsible, but they are not resourced to do that and it is not their job to do it. It is too big a job for them to do. Some of them are prejudiced anyway. Those of us who are in politics a long time are certainly aware that many print media publications have a political view of their own to espouse.

I do not wish to extend the pessimism, but Mr. Harte sort of put forward education as a pathway to rational decision-making. Is that the case? I would be interested in our guests' take on this. The narrative in respect of America is that for the past 30, 40 or 50 years, liberal universities have created liberal media and a liberal law-making judiciary and now thoughtful and educated conservatives are taking that back. In a way, it is prejudice on our part to think that if people are educated, they will think like us. It is part of the arrogance that drives those people on. Hillary Clinton referred to them as the "deplorables". There is a narrative that they are too ignorant to understand and that if they were properly educated, they would think like we do. These are fundamental issues that will impact on the way future democracy works.

As an aside, I was taken by Mr. Harte's observation that the antisemitic tropes echoing disinformation narratives are common, as is language questioning Israel's motivations. I ask him to expand on the point in respect of language questioning Israel's motivations. Certainly I question Israel's motivations in what it is doing now. It goes to my point that it is not wrong to have a different view from us. I watched a debate on television the other night where a very strong journalist from Israel made his argument. I fundamentally disagree with that argument, but he is entitled to make it.