Public service broadcast journalism is in danger of losing its way as the educator of public opinion, according to the Minister for Justice. He said certain broadcasters were seeking to play an "agenda-setting" role rather than reporting in an objective and impartial way.
Michael McDowell was giving the 10th annual lecture on "Broadcasting, Society and the Law", presented jointly by RTÉ and UCD's School of Law. He is the first Irish person to do so, with previous speakers including the former British lord chancellor, Lord Irvine, and the Canadian Supreme Court judge, Louise Arbour.
In guaranteeing freedom of expression, the Constitution states that the education of public opinion is the legitimate function of the media, he said. It also makes clear that "criticism of Government policy" is different from undermining "the authority of the State".
The position of the media in the Constitution means that the media has both rights and duties. Among its duties is to educate public opinion, and to uphold the rights of citizens, including the right to privacy and a good name. They also include upholding public order and morality and the authority of the State.
"The State, I think, has a correlative right to prevent the 'commodification' of the media to the point where they lose out on their role as educators of public opinion or in their capacity to function as organs of public opinion," he said.
"In short, there is I think a constitutional mandate for the State to remain a significant guarantor through public service broadcasting of the media role as organs of public opinion, if not, in Seán Lemass's memorable if unfortunate phrase, 'organs of government'," he said.
He added that there was an equal constitutional mandate for a policy of diverse media ownership.
The rightful liberty to broadcast criticism of government policy did not imply a right to ignore or qualify a statutory and constitutional duty of political neutrality and objectivity, he said.
From this perspective, he questioned "agenda-setting", "campaigning journalism" and "investigative reporting" by State media and State-licensed media.
"Is the choice of subject matter for 'campaigns' and 'agenda-setting' on issues of current affairs a matter on which there must also be impartiality and objectivity?" he asked.
"There are signs that a minority of journalists and programme makers have decided that they want to be political players - that their legal obligations of impartiality and objectivity are boring, outdated, style-cramping counsels of perfection. There are signs that some of them want to be agenda-setters."
He said that there was no simple answer to this, but he advocated a position between random selection of topics for investigation on the one hand, and having broadcasters completely free to campaign on issues chosen personally and subjectively, representing their own ideological or political priorities, on the other.