In a democratic society, information is essential. How can you actively participate, or even just vote, if you don't know what's going on? One of the functions of the media is to keep us informed. But, in Ireland and elsewhere, newspapers and magazines are increasingly owned by companies and individuals with their fingers in many pies other than the media - and, therefore, all sorts of agendas. These owners would undoubtedly argue for the values of a free press. However, the objective of any astute business person is to make money. And a newspaper is as much a commodity as anything else he or she aspires to make money from. In this context, readers are not primarily citizens but consumers. Of course, it can be argued that a strong emphasis on the commercial aspect of the media actually benefits readers: after all, your only hope of success is to meet the customers' demands. In a competitive market, readers are well informed on what they want to know.

However, this sunny formula gets more shadowy when there really isn't direct competition.

And suppose the owner of a publication had financial interests in a few other companies. What if he owned a pharmaceutical company which was suspected of violating environmental codes? Would the paper be reliably inclined to keep readers informed? Or what if the economic policies of a particular political party were considered desirable by the owner. What would happen at election time? Suppose one person owned or had sizeable shares in more than half the available newspapers in a given country. How would that affect freedom of information? This paragraph isn't hypothetical. It is the case in Ireland where Tony O'Reilly, owner of the Independent Newspapers company, owns the Irish Independent (the highest-selling daily newspaper), the Sunday Independent, the Evening Herald and the Sunday World. It has a 50 per cent share in the Star (the biggest-selling tabloid), a 24.9 per cent share in the Sunday Tribune, owns the Kerryman, the People newspapers and other local titles and has interests in cable television. Independent Newspapers owns, has shares in or bankrolls all the Sunday newspapers except the Sunday Business Post. During the week it controls about 85 per cent of the evening newspaper market in the State.

Of course, Independent publications sell extremely well. The readers would appear to be happy with the information and analysis they are getting. Maybe they have the same political beliefs as the owner and editors of the papers; perhaps they are happy to see certain economic and political policies in place. On the other hand, maybe they are not really aware of alternatives.

The Irish Times is the only other Irish national daily. It is governed by a trust which requires the paper to conform to a number of social and journalistic principles. However, while its sales bring in a certain amount of revenue, the bulk of the income of The Irish Times comes from advertisers.

There are many, many different advertisers who are attracted to the readership profile of this newspaper, so there is not one single company in a dominant position. Still, it's arguable that many of the companies placing ads in The Irish Times share a preference for certain political and economic policies. Could that conceivably affect the content of the newspaper? In the US and other countries there are laws governing ownership of the press, though they have grown weaker over the years.

Even Rupert Murdoch - the media mogul who has interest in broadcasting and print media companies worldwide (including small offices in Ireland for British newspapers the Sun and the Times) - found in the 1980s that the law wouldn't allow him to own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market, New York. Here, the Competition Authority - a statutory body which guards against monopoly situations - criticised the role of Independent Newspapers when the company tried to invest in the ailing Irish Press Group. But even though after the Irish Press and its sister papers failed the trend in Ireland towards monopolisation of the press has been strikingly evident, there is no specific legislation in place to control media ownership. Given the media ownership situation here, how politically easy would a government minister find it to implement effective legislation against the monopolies - and in support of a free press?