Seanad debates

Wednesday, 28 February 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I must agree with Senators Walsh and Hayes. The section does not just deal with basic standards of truthfulness and professionalism, which, unfortunately are sometimes lacking in media coverage of events. There is a low standard set in some areas, which I must deprecate.

I remember coming to the House once and deciding, in order to promote the use of Irish, that I would deliver a Second Stage speech in Irish. I also provided the speech, in English, to each Member. The following Friday, I was contacted by a reporter from The Sunday Tribune and was asked why I had made the speech in Irish and whether I had an ulterior motive. I replied there was no ulterior motive and that I had circulated the speech in English. Although the newspaper people knew that, on Sunday they wrote an article implying I had an ulterior motive and deliberately concealed the fact I had circulated my speech in English.

The clear message of the article was that I was up to no good using the Irish language and that there was something suspicious about my action. The one fact deliberately concealed in the newspaper report was that I had circulated a translation to every Member. This was done to prop up a story that was fundamentally untrue, that I had an underhand motive in speaking in Irish and was trying to conceal from the public what I was doing.

This kind of fundamental departure from decent standards of plain, intellectual honesty are to be deeply regretted. This case is just one that stuck in my mind because of the deliberate excision of a fact from the story, which the newspaper knew about two days before publishing the story. However, it decided the story would be better and more coherent and impressive if the truth was suppressed.

I agree with Senator Walsh that we cannot, in defamation law, set standards for the whole of the media. However, there are some areas of journalism where people feel free to suppress facts. I agree with Senator Hayes, facts are sacred but comment is free. If The Sunday Tribune had stated on its front page that day that I had circulated my speech in both languages, the story would have looked absurd and would not have merited one column inch. This is the kind of thing one must put up with.

Standards vary internationally. On one occasion I spoke to a journalist from The New York Times where internal standards are impressive compared to many newspapers of which I have some knowledge. If one of its journalists is found to be inaccurate or unfair, the editor requires a written statement from the said journalist setting out why a particular fact drawn to his attention was left out of the story. There is internal accountability in the office to keep up the high standard of the newspaper. I doubt that happens much in Ireland.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.