John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I wish to share my time with Senator Maurice Hayes.

I should declare an interest. I was a journalist for 30 years with the Irish Farmers' Journal. The sex lives of bovine animals and the cross-fertilisation of cereals do not engage the public in the same way as other more salacious activities but, nevertheless, I gained an insight into how the newspaper industry works. The profit motive is dominant and that is understandable. It is legitimate that newspapers should make profits but I very much support the Minister regarding the need for a free press. It is the basis of our democracy. The Fourth Estate has an important role to play in a democracy. It is understandable that Governments try to control the press but it is wrong and the Government must tread cautiously before it intervenes in that area of freedom.

I also very much support the Minister regarding taste. There should not be a statutory determination of what constitutes taste because taste changes over time. While some articles may be distasteful, it should not necessarily be the case that they should be prevented from being published. The editors of newspapers have obligations and responsibilities regarding comment and the veracity of facts but, unless the frontiers of taste are pushed out time from time, it would be a retrograde step. We have enough experience in our history of censorship to know one is going down a slippery road if one intervenes regarding taste. One famous example of this in the House involves The Tailor and Ansty. Reading that debate again demonstrates how a Government can go into an area in which it should be reluctant to intrude.

The questions of balance and degree are essential to the debate. The Minister should be commended for wishing to consult and I am glad the House will have a role. We have had many debates on this issue since I became a Member and the Law Reform Commission report was debated fully. Senator Manning was active in this area when he was here, both as Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition. I have participated in debates in Cleraun study centre, as has the Minister, and those debates have been useful for forming a view on these matters. There is merit in detachment, as is evident in the Minister's speech.

One of the difficulties with modern newspapers is that there is an increasing tendency to portray opinions as facts. This is particularly evident in the Sunday Independent. If one tries to find news in it, apart from the lead story which itself is sometimes not news, one finds a preponderance of articles from self-proclaimed experts who tend to be from middle class backgrounds — dare I say Dublin 4 types, which is a state of mind rather than a geographic location. These articles tend to reflect the attitudes of a particular section of society and regard those attitudes as dominant. There does not appear to be a balance in the attitudes represented by the newspaper. However, the plain people have enough sense to sift out what is good and what is bad. Frequently, the attitudes represented by the newspaper do not reflect the attitudes dominant within the country as a whole, but thankfully, the plain people have enough good sense to resist them.

There is something more sinister about this in the sense that there is an increasing tendency to subvert democracy, which is a danger. To return to the question of a free press and balance, they have a role within the democratic process. Their role is one of scrutiny and to ensure that Government and institutions of the State are accountable. There is, however, an increasing tendency to want to have the State run on the terms they regard from their narrow perspective as desirable.

This brought to mind the famous comment by C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian for almost 50 years that "comment is free, but facts are sacred". The preamble to that comment is interesting and perhaps we are not so different nowadays from what we were then:

A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong.

This was written in 1921 but still is true today.

On the matter of a press council, I agree with the Minister that it should be an independent body and should embrace all the elements of society mentioned by him. There should also be a press ombudsman. What sort of sanctions will there be for such a body? This critical question is hanging in the air.

We must also examine the question of libel, what it is and whether it should be redefined. There appears to be a different standard for public and private persons. The right to privacy is absolute. However, there are people who use the press. Some people are famous for being famous and while they want to be pictured going into a nightclub in London, they do not want anybody to intrude. It is a double-edged sword and if one lives by the sword, one dies by the sword. As Wellington said: "Publish and be damned."