Today is World Press Freedom Day. "So what?" you might ask. Yesterday might be world sockwearing day and tomorrow world water-awareness day. Rightly or wrongly, press freedom is something we in Ireland take for granted. We can afford to. No reporters are in Irish prisons, and while the killing of Veronica Guerin marked a new low for Irish society it is put into context by the hundreds of journalists killed or imprisoned worldwide since then.
A free press is one of the cornerstones of democracy. The press is often called the "fourth estate", a phrase which has its origins in France when the "estates" were, basically, house of parliament. If it were not for a free press, voters would have no impartial way of monitoring a nation's leaders.
What would the implications for our society be if it could not be informed about payments to politicians, Garda corruption and infected blood being given to haemophiliacs? World Press Freedom Day could equally be termed "World Functioning Democracy Day".
In Ireland we are fortunate enough to have what would be termed a free press, but it is far from an absolute freedom. There are many constraints on the media here, some justified, some not, some obvious, some not.
The sanctity of sources is a key principle of journalism for which there is little or no protection in this State. Who will be a "whistle blower" to the press if they stand the risk of being named, shamed, fired, and maybe, just maybe, killed?
In the 1970s a journalist was imprisoned for refusing to reveal the identity of an IRA source. An Irish journalist only escaped prison on a technicality for a story that led to the beef tribunal. Recently, however, the powers-that-be and the courts seem to be wary of prosecuting journalists for contempt. The main reason for this is the European Charter of Human Rights. A British journalist was fined for not revealing his source of confidential information; he fought his case all the way to the European Court, where he won.
In this case, the judges ruled that to force the revealing of sources was not necessary in a democratic society, and that protecting sources allowed the press to act as a watchdog and hence was an essential part of a journalist's job. It should not be interfered with unless in exceptional circumstances, where vital or public interests are at stake.
The issue of what constitutes "vital or public interests" still has to be resolved under European law. In spite of that ruling, Channel Four was still fined for refusing to reveal the identity of its sources for a programme alleging collusion between loyalists and the security forces in the North. Irish journalists are at an added disadvantage: Ireland, alone of the 41 members of the Council of Europe, has not included the ECHR in its own laws. This means that a defence against refusing to reveal sources would have to go all the way to Europe, as opposed to being fought in Irish courts. This further discourages challenging the law and adds to an atmosphere of over-caution and restriction.
Another restriction on the press is the Censorship of Publications Act. Again, though it is infrequently used, this has the power to limit magazine, newspaper (and book) content.
Publications which "have usually or frequently been indecent or offensive" are covered by this. They are not banned in advance however, and a complainant must produce three issues of a magazine. Recently it resulted in a ban for In Dublin.
Many ask why there should be such censorship at all. They argue that, in the case of pornography, for example, there is no point in banning something when the best way to deal with it would be to prosecute those producing it for indecency. In this way, undue censorship would be removed and a more open media environment permitted. Again, such censorship can foster an "if in doubt, leave it out" mentality.
Concentration of ownership is another issue. The effect that commercial interests could have is greatly increased in situations where ownership of the press is concentrated in the hands of one group. In Britain, Rupert Murdoch's News International controls not only Sky TV but also the Times and the Sun; he has rivals however, in the shape of Associated Newspapers and the Mirror Group.
In Ireland, however, the position of Independent newspapers is one of near-dominance. The company controls three of five Irish Sunday papers and oversees more than 80 per cent of this and the evening-newspaper market. Seamus Dooley, the Irish organiser of the National Union of Journalists, says there is "no evidence of there being a direct link on editorial policy" from Independent owners. He points out that, for example, on Northern Ireland the Sunday Independent has a different line than its sister papers.
"Where the NUJ would have very real concerns is the area of cross-ownership," he says. This is where other interests benefit from the company's domination; Independent chairman Tony O'Reilly is involved in several major companies outside the newspaper world. Every newspaper is entitled to its opinions, but when a parent company has links to others potentially affected by a change in government, what really motivates it?
Although Independent journalists vehemently deny it, Dooley says there is a feeling that outside interests may colour some coverage. The problem is not what goes in, rather the "problem would appear to be what doesn't appear. There can be an element of self-censorship," he says.
Lurking behind the scenes is yet another measure. Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act permits the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, to pass an order that "any matter" cannot be broadcast. For more than 20 years, a Ministerial order under Section 31 decreed that interviews with the IRA and Sinn Fein could not be broadcast. Journalists, concerned that they might break the law, interpreted this order quite broadly. Although that order has not been issued since 1994, the section is still in force. The Minister still only needs to say the word and whoever he chooses will be off the air before their feet touch the studio floor.
There will be similar powers included in the new broadcasting bill, despite the fact that most journalists feel that, as Seamus Dooley puts it: "There is no place for a Section 31 mentality in a modern democracy."
