John Crown (Independent)

Go raibh maith agat. At this stage the Minister must think I have some type of unrequieted hero worship for him because I stated previously that he has the most important job in the public service when he was wearing his energy hat. His role in this area is critical as well. I am asked frequently about the major side effects of the treatment we provide for the disease I deal with as part of my day job. My answer is that historically the greatest side effect in Ireland is not getting enough of the treatment because there has not been enough nurses or doctors to ensure one got treatment. I have a similar attitude to the question of hypothetical intrusiveness on the part of the media.

Let us consider modern history in Ireland. What has been the major impact of the media's level of intrusion in public life? One must conclude that it is negative because the media did not intrude enough. I recall when I was a dirty-nosed student and a young doctor in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it was widely considered that several prominent figures in Irish politics might have had serious ethical questions to answer. These should have been put to them and they should have been given the opportunity to answer those questions in the press.

The watchdogs should have been the first line from which to launch the public interrogation. For whatever reason there is a sense that this interrogation never took place, that we had a somewhat timid school of investigative journalism and that the watchdogs or the people involved had turned into poodles or even bichons. Although some people make it in good faith there is no doubt that any attempt to enforce some level of policing of the investigative activities of the media is fraught and those involved can go far over the boundaries. We have all seen it. They can intrude into areas that are purely salacious and of no interest to the public while at the same time ignoring areas of critical public importance and interest. The view is that we should simply suck it up, that this is one of the perils of being involved in various aspects of public discourse in Ireland and that we will have our dirty laundry or mildly unfresh laundry subjected to a level of scrutiny citizens without the same level of prominence are not subjected to.

The downside of trying to increase the policing function of any part of the State over the way journalists go about their business poses a greater threat. By way of recourse, there is no doubt that there are sharp journalistic practices here which, I believe, in some cases are unethical. Once I mischievously asked a print journalist who was sharing a platform with me on a broadcast medium if there was any story that he would not publish if he knew it would sell newspapers and he knew it would not get him sued. He paused for a moment and said "No". That was the answer. The reality is that we must depend to a certain extent on the decency of the people in these positions to use the great power they have wisely.

At the same time there may be gentle ways to increase the level of muscle that enforces or polices the more extreme types of behaviour. I have no doubt there are people in the business who, from time to time, have published things they knew to be untrue because they thought they could get away with it. For these more extreme examples we should consider whether there is some case to be made for introducing some element of criminal as well as civil liability. I suppose hypothetically that if evidence came out in a civil case to the effect that someone had deliberately misinformed then such a person should also have some automatic responsibility before criminal law. The free press is one of the most important things we have. It is more dangerous for us to police it than to occasionally feel the sharper end of its barb.