Brendan Ryan (Labour)

My view on the libel laws is that the basic intent is no problem; the problem is the cumbersome nature of the process of redress. Some people sue looking for enormous damages but most people who sue do so to seek redress. The media could work with the State to put together a process of inexpensive redress and therefore at least ensure that people were vindicated without the necessity for extensive legal cases.

The Minister put the case very well on the issue of privacy. I have yet to be persuaded that we need to write down the need to privacy in statutory form for the reasons outlined by him. We need to realise where the press is going if we are to talk about freedom of the press in the 21st century. For example, if the printing press were only now to be invented, would we licence print journalism in the way we licence broadcasting? The argument is made that airwaves are a limited resource but this effectively will be ended by the advent of digital broadcasting, especially for radio for which an endless amount of air space will become available. The process of cumbersome regulation is based on protecting the commercial interests of local radio stations as much as it is on maintaining diversity. This matter must be re-examined. The minimum regulation is all that is required. The freedom of the press relates to the freedom to do what the press wants to do within the law, not some kind of regulated freedom.

I like the reference that television in the United States is essentially about selling audiences to advertisers. To the degree that this is true — this is where I disagree with Senator Maurice Hayes — it drives agendas, which is why, for example, public service broadcasting in the United States tends to be very different from private broadcasting.

The traditional enemy of freedom of the press was parliament and the executive. With some reservations, that is not the case here anymore as we have moved on to an extent. However there are other enemies to do with ownership and the agendas of ownership. It is those agendas which often determine what is addressed. Many of the issues to do with tax evasion were barely dealt with in the media in the 1980s and early 1990s, other than in a dismissive way as the rhetoric of extreme left-wingers like me even though competent economists suggested that expenditure and income as declared here did not match. One has to wonder about that point.

The dangerous and worrying issue in regard to ownership and agenda is that one of the agendas of powerful media owners is a denigration of politics. A common consensus is apparent that politics is populated by inferior beings and has little to do with the real world. That is a common theme of many Sunday Independent columnists. Whatever their views on issues, the last people to whom they would give credit are the people involved in the political process. The sinister thing is that the owners of these large media conglomerates take an entirely different view and spend enormous sums of money cultivating the very political process that they try to persuade their readers is entirely irrelevant to their lives. It is not that one or two journalists are writing nonsense about the Minister, Deputy McDowell, or Senator Ryan; it is that there is an agenda which effectively denigrates politics while the owners of the media, perhaps more than ever, appreciate the centrality of political decision making to the protection of their interests. That is sinister and the freedom of the press can be inhibited by such agenda-setting.

In regard to the issue of privacy, what was done to a member of the Government in recent weeks was perhaps a new low in Irish journalism, although there have been similar instances before. For example, the private life of another prominent politician was intruded into by an Irish edition of a British Sunday newspaper. However, in this case, an Irish newspaper seems to have resorted to new lows.

We were concerned about the issue but many politicians have been troubled about the fact that the sudden eruption of concern about privacy has followed an intrusion into the private life of a very prominent journalist. It appears that the famous "fair game" quote, which Senator Norris quite rightly denounced, was essentially one that was at least tolerated if not practised by many in the media in respect of politicians and others until the situation was turned back on a particular journalist. Nonetheless, I am glad we have had such a debate because there are many issues to be discussed.

We should leave the powerful and the famous out of this matter. Intrusions into private grief, family tragedies and details about gruesome suicides are grossly wrong unless there is some profound public reason. The Irish Times, to its credit, has decided it will not publish the names of suicide victims, which is a very fine decision. I do not believe for a second that we should regulate for such cases because it is a dangerous area. However, there is a level of intrusion not into the lives of prominent, famous or powerful people, but rather small people who have neither the personal capacity nor the resources to go to the courts to seek injunctions, damages and so on. This is among the more repulsive forms of journalism.

The intrusion into the family life of the perpetrator of a crime is also wrong. I have no problem with dealing vigorously and firmly with an individual who breaks the law. However, the victims of the crime and the family surrounding the perpetrator should not be involved. The fact that an individual member of a family commits an offence is no reason to intrude into the privacy of the family to find out the juicy bits with which to titillate the population.

Similarly, the fact that some young people such as rock stars seek publicity in a naive way is not in itself justification for an intrusion into their lives when they are suffering from a troublesome marriage. Stories were regularly published about one of our best footballers who has now retired and whose name I do not want to mention, although people will figure out to whom I am referring. This man had a drink problem and is one of the nicest and most decent guys ever to play football. However, the tabloid newspapers used to delight every time he relapsed into his drink problem — it was a wonderful story for them.

When the young boy was tragically killed in Cork, one could feel a section of the media waiting for the moment at which they could launch into salacious material about sexual abuse. One could almost feel the disappointment when it turned out not to have been as salacious as they had anticipated. There is a duty on those who work in the media to take responsibility for such matters. There is an unequivocal duty on them to take responsibility.

It is perfectly correct that journalists criticise politicians because we should be held accountable. The more powerful people are in politics, the more they should be held accountable. Therefore, they should target the Minister rather than me.