In the past there has been a suggestion that people who are wronged by the media should have some form of redress from a press council. What form of redress could there be? The defamation group's report suggested that a jury might decide to accord the new defence of reasonable publication to a newspaper because of the extent to which that newspaper toed the line with the press council appointed under the Act. That was not sufficiently stressed at last Monday week's conference. The report tied the notion of reasonable publication to a willingness to accept press council decisions and to act on foot thereof. There is a subtle logic to that. It connects together the notion of a responsible press being allowed greater latitude. If the Irish Daily Bugle, for example, constantly ignored the press council, the defence of reasonable publication might not avail it because the particular politician of whom the Irish Daily Bugle had asked its question may have felt he would not get a fair deal from the newspaper since it had consistently ignored press council rulings.