Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It must be said that when we talk of the media as an industry, and when we look at industries that produce widgets or whatever, we must realise the media is a very different industry. The importance of this was recognised in Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution under fundamental freedoms which says "The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema ... " and it goes on. Obviously this predated television, digital platforms etc. but they could equally be applied. The media must be seen as a different because it is a different industry. It is an industry with a central public importance. The former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Keane, in a Supreme Court ruling he made on any measure which challenges the right to private property - and private property comes under a different article of the Constitution - stated that it must be rationally connected to an objective of sufficient importance to warrant interference.

I accept that view but, as I said, it is different when it comes to the media. There is a public interest test to be met, which would have failed in respect of the Celtic Media Group merger if the regulations were working. I absolutely dispute they are working well, because all the evidence points to the opposite. The media are one of the basic democratic pillars of our society. The Minister said that under current legislation, the Oireachtas has not provided for powers to examine, review or intervene retrospectively in past mergers. In fact, the Celtic Media Group merger suggests those powers do not even extend to future mergers, given the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission's willingness to allow the merger to proceed.

The Minister dismissed the provision in our Bill which seeks to recognise the digital platforms within which media operate by claiming existing legislation already encompasses that issue. The 2014 Act refers in the context of media ownership to "the market share of those media businesses as measured by listenership, readership, reach or other appropriate measures". Our argument is that it is necessary to refer specifically to digital media, digital reach and multimedia platforms due to their major role in how media are consumed. To dismiss that requirement is an oversight.

The database on media ownership to which the Minister referred details only the titles that fall under particular entities. It does not show the full shareholdings of each media business. The point I am making is that one cannot possibly measure media ownership if it is not counted and documented. How is the Minister measuring the process such that he can say it is working well? I do not see how it can be working well if we do not have something by which to measure it. We cannot have a silo-based approach in regard to the media. Oversight must be done across all platforms if we are to have a true picture of reach and influence.

Deputy Dooley said the media have served us well. One of the main conclusions after the crash was that we had an issue of groupthink in the media. The advertising revenue that more or less became the basis of the business model for the survival of the media at that point was a major influence in terms of the type of coverage that was given on issues and the dismissal of alternative views. The media lost the diversity that was needed to challenge the view, for example, that the property sector was not overheating. If one does not accept that 20% is the threshold above which the concentration of media ownership is a problem, does one propose it should be 30% or 40%? Will the same issues arise every time there is a merger and will it essentially come down to a choice between jobs and diversity? There must be something more to it if we are to protect this fundamental element of our democracy. We all know our democracy is not perfect but there are some very good aspects to what we do have. Diversity of media is something we have been identified as being at high risk of not retaining. When we identify such a risk and see that what is happening is not in the public interest, it is incumbent on us to take action. A succession of failings has led us to this point and there is every chance the situation will get worse. I am very unhappy with the description of the oversight process as working well.

There are other issues to consider concerning the media that are beyond the scope of this Bill. The content that is provided to the media and the way politics operate, for instance, are important factors. The Government is very much responsible for much of the media manipulation we are seeing in respect of political reporting. The handling of opportunities for the media to engage with the Taoiseach is a good example of this. I have heard from several political correspondents that the Government press officer will often choose who is entitled to ask questions. It is not up to that individual to choose. It should be a matter for the press corps itself. It is a fair criticism to observe that many public figures on the international stage make themselves much more accessible to the media than the Taoiseach does.

In other words, it is not just about media mergers but also about how we treat members of the media and whether we value them as part of the democratic process. If we do, there must be engagement and transparency so that people can do their job. Everybody in this House knows that trying to get answers to parliamentary questions is hit and miss. It very much depends on the particular Department or Minister whether one will get a comprehensive response. People, including parliamentarians and the media, cannot do their jobs when there is that approach.

The focus in our Bill is on media ownership and diversity, but there is a lot more we need to put right. To give another example, consideration should be given to reviewing the defamation laws and imposing limitations in respect of the taking of libel cases. When we have people with very deep pockets potentially putting a title out of business by virtue of a successful action in the courts, it goes beyond the question of protecting a person's good name. Ordinary citizens do not have the pockets to take that type of case. These are some of the issues that need to be addressed into the future.

As I said, I do not know what measure the Minister is using when he says the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is working well. In fact, it is a completely opaque process with no transparency as to how decisions are made. The advisory panel is chosen from a small pool of media professionals in Ireland, but the reality is that we live in a small country and this is a relatively small industry. Sometimes it is necessary to look to external expertise to have a fair assessment of where we stand. Deputies Dooley and Chambers spoke in platitudes about supporting the principle of the Bill. The problem is that if we keep making excuses every time we breach the threshold, when do we get to the point of principle where it is acknowledged we are at risk and where diversity trumps the other arguments? I am disappointed the Government is not supporting the Bill and Fianna Fáil is abstaining. I welcome the comments by others in support of the Bill. I hope the debate has been fruitful in at least identifying the very serious problems that need to be addressed, but I am sorry they will not be addressed at this time.

See this speech in context