Stadium decision 'an indirect result' of FOI

The decision to build a new national stadium at Lansdowne Road was "at least an indirect result" of the Freedom of Information Act, the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, told the Cleraun media conference.

Ms O'Reilly said it was through records accessed under the Act that the public learned of "potential cost overruns and other problems" relating to the Sports Campus Ireland project at Abbotstown.

"Armed with that information, the public and other interested parties could properly engage in the debate on whether the Government should press ahead with it or not. The net result is the decision that was made in January."

However, she warned that official figures would almost certainly show that the number of media requests under the Act fell during 2003, when the Government introduced a fee-charging regime and restrictions on the information that could be sought. "If this slide continues, the implications for the FOI could be serious," she added.

As Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly said, she had to balance the "battling twins" of the right to know and the right to privacy. A request for details of the salaries of RTÉ's top 20 presenters highlighted the conflict between these competing rights. She had recently decided in favour of releasing the information, although the decision was still open to appeal.

Other speakers at the Cleraun seminar included French media expert Mr Renaud de Clermont-Tonnerre, who cautioned against the growing influence of "hidden persuaders" - spin-doctors, public relations firms, and advertisers - in editorial decision-making.

He said such influences were "the bitter fruits" of the media's evolution into a market-driven and profit-oriented industry. They threatened the "moral contract" between media and reader or audience, he added, and their power had only been strengthened by the caution many companies and institutions now exercised towards the press.

It had become much harder for journalists to get, and to double-check, facts.

"When information is rare, information has a price. The communications agents working in business and politics are in an optimum position to negotiate deals with journalists: scoops are selectively leaked, exclusive interviews are granted with leaders or directors, in exchange for which they require - or at least implicitly expect - positive reporting and 'good behaviour'."

New York Times writer Diana Henriques warned of the particular challenges facing business journalists. Conflicts of interest were not new in finance journalism, she said.

The US Congress inquiry into the factors that caused the 1929 Wall Street Crash found that a number of influential finance journalists in New York had been "on the take", accepting pay-offs for favourable stories about stocks that traders wanted to dump on the public.

To prevent such occurrences, the New York Times had draconian rules for staff and freelance journalists alike, including bans on the buying and selling of options or futures contracts, or involvement in short-selling of any kind.