Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I do not know whether we should be kind to him and offer him a bed or be unkind and charge him rent, given that he is spending so much time in the House. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a topic which is offering different opinions. Before legislation is afoot, much difficulty and emotion will be expressed before it is all done and dusted. This is a serious issue with which we must deal. We must maintain a balance when we are dealing with it. A person is entitled to his or her reputation and good name at all times, which must be balanced with the fact that freedom of expression and a free press are very important features of a democratic society, as Senator Norris pointed out.

From reading the coverage on this issue, one could be forgiven for thinking some journalists and commentators believe they have an absolute right when presenting their views and anything they say takes precedence over any other consideration. Taking this as the thoughts of some in the profession, one can well understand why individuals have been defamed in the media. The Minister referred to the case when the Taoiseach was accused of taking £50,000 from an individual in a car park. While it turned out to be untrue, the Taoiseach paid the price for the allegation. Recently on the Joe Duffy show, the issue was raised of D.J. Carey's private life on the morning of an All-Ireland Hurling Final. As Kilkenny were playing Cork that morning, did a Cork man write the story? The recent hounding of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, is another example.

The nature of the newspaper industry is such that there is a great increase in the number of titles in a declining market. As a consequence, the behaviour of newspapers lends itself to what coverage we receive. On the Internet, I read of an incident with P.J. Mara, the then press secretary to Fianna Fáil, during the 1990 presidential election. He was asked by a newspaper for information relating to the health of the late Brian Lenihan. The newspaper argued that the public was entitled to know, to which P.J. Mara replied "the public are entitled to know — all". Due to the late Brian Lenihan's candidacy, the fault line lay between matters of public interest and curiosity. A private citizen's medical records would never be considered in normal circumstances. Several weeks ago, a member of the band, U2, took an injunction against a newspaper for printing details of a family member's situation. He was forced to go to the courts to prevent this happening.

The NUJ has a code of conduct that requires journalists not to intrude into people's privacy unless there is an overriding reason as to why they should. That code is gathering dust in some office as it does not feature in much newspaper coverage. The media has no system of regulation. If anyone has a legitimate claim against a newspaper, he or she must go through a right of reply process which is normally found in the newspaper's back pages. A balance needs to be achieved where individuals can achieve some form of redress for defamation without the expense of resorting to the courts, irrespective of whether they can afford to do so. The argument in favour of self-regulation suggests that statutory controls would be hostile to press freedom. At the same time, if the press has its freedom, it must deal with it in a proper manner. Press freedom is a necessary requirement in a democratic society. However, it must also be recognised that the free exchange of ideas and opinions builds on the values that inform society. Statutory intervention will not run contrary to this. It is possible to establish a statutory body that will respect the freedom of the press while being transparent and independent, giving the public confidence in the procedure.

The best response to any defamatory statement is a quick and strong rebuttal. If a journalist is shown to have his or her facts wrong, the statement will lose credibility. However, to challenge statements made against oneself, unfortunately one needs to own a similar platform such as a newspaper or broadcasting station. On many occasions, people's reputations have been destroyed by the media. If a newspaper prints an apology the following morning for a misstatement, one will still not recover one's good name in the short term. There will always be the assertion that there is never smoke without fire; the fact it was stated means there is some element of truth to it. The argument is often bandied around that a lower level of proof is required if the individual concerned is in public life. This is hogwash. If one does not print the truth, one should pay the price. No one should be allowed to print lies about a person which could affect his or her standing in the community or, in some instances, destroy families.

At the same time, good investigative journalism must be encouraged. Good journalism brought about the chain of events that gave rise to the tribunals of inquiry. This journalism is welcome and helpful to society. I naively believed that the instruction manual for journalists stated they should be objective, fair and balanced and not allow personal dislikes or distastes to enter the arena. Given the influence that such reporting has on the public, great interest must be shown in this area as a journalist can destroy a person's life. Headlines frequently bear no relationship to the story they underline. Often, they are wholly unfair and damaging. These headlines are used for the sole purpose of selling newspapers. If there is any integrity in newspapers or broadcasting, they should report on an issue without using a headline that captures the imagination but bears no resemblance, good, bad or indifferent, to the story itself. Unfortunately, democratic politics needs journalists as much as journalists need politicians.