RTÉ's chief news correspondent, Charlie Bird, told the conference that without invading the privacy of National Irish Bank (NIB) account-holders it would not have been possible to pursue the story of bogus non-resident accounts. The NIB had opposed that right up to the Supreme Court, which had found privacy relating to bank accounts could be invaded in the public interest.
"One Government Minister said there was no crock of gold there. There was £1 billion there," said Mr Bird. "Were those people entitled to their privacy? No. They were cheating on their taxes. They had to be exposed."
A balance had to be struck between people's right to privacy and the public interest. If journalists got it wrong, they should pay the price, he said. The public should be protected. He said he personally had no problem with a press council, but it should not be filled with the cronies of some Government Minister.
Irish Times columnist John Waters said there was a danger in attempting to strike a balance between the public interest and an individual's privacy. "Apart from the criminality that Charlie talked about, it is all a cartoon. No purpose other than voyeurism and titillation is served.
"I don't think that because people seek publicity in one area they have surrendered their right to privacy in the domestic arena."
He said he disagreed with the concept that hypocrisy should be exposed. "Just because a person, in their humanity, falls short of values [like family values], it does not make these values invalid. We should draw a line between sin and crime."
The editor of the Star newspaper, Ger Colleran, said there was now a fear that new laws on privacy would impose burdens that would deliver a weaker style of journalism and a lighter bottom line for media businesses.
"In the main, media comes under sustained attack as a result of its coverage of tragic, highly-charged and sensitive matters such as murder, rape and other kinds of sexual crimes, suicides, terror outrages and so on. Also there is often criticism of media coverage of funerals," he said.
"In my experience the most strident criticism comes from people who are not directly linked to the tragic events being covered or to the victims, or indeed the deceased. My experience has been that families treasure press reports of loved ones lost to them."
Prof William Binchy said that privacy was a moving concept. It was closely associated with concepts of autonomy and dignity. Putting it into law would give it a degree of specificity that could look stale in two years' time.
He added that it was difficult to identify appropriate remedies for breaches of privacy. Large financial awards worked with defamation, but may not work here. An injunction might not either if the defendant pleaded the truth of the allegation. Referring to the UK experience with a press council, he said: "The media love them. They are cost-free and they don't work."