Increasingly newspapers make no distinction between public curiosity and public interest, writes Michael Foley
Police at Scotland Yard are investigating the activities of tabloid newspapers following the charging of News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman with hacking into the royal family's mobile phone messages.
Police acted after a complaint from staff at Clarence House - home of Prince Charles and his family. The mobile messages of his sons, Harry and William, are alleged to have been among those accessed.
Police say the inquiry will expand to include senior politicians who might also have been targeted, with all the implications this has for security and privacy.
As far as we in Ireland are concerned that might be an interesting, quirky story about the fraught relationship between Britain's so-called "red tops" and the royal family. But, as became clear this week, the methods Mr Goodman allegedly used are common throughout Fleet Street. And, of course, Mr Goodman's newspaper is available here, and is part of the News International group, which includes the Sunday Times and the Sun, both of which have Irish editions.
As far as politicians are concerned this story supplies another reason to support the legislative changes being introduced by Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, in particular his privacy Bill.
Since the early 1990s British tabloid newspapers have seen Ireland as a lucrative market in the face of increasing domestic difficulties. British newspapers now account for about a third of all Sunday sales and a quarter of daily newspaper sales in Ireland. Most are tabloid newspapers. British tabloids now have Irish editions, employing a small Irish staff.
British newspaper groups have also moved in to buy newspapers and other media in Ireland which, for good or bad, has brought with it British journalistic methods and practices.
Increasingly newspapers make no distinction between public curiosity and public interest. They have widened the definition of what might constitute a public figure to include not just the rich and famous and all politicians, but anyone who has ever been in the media - along with their families. The tabloids are not solely responsible for this trend, of course, but they have enthusiastically embraced it and brought their considerable investigative skills to ethically questionable stories.
Much of the work newspapers and other media have done recently has been for society's good: unearthing the child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and corruption in public life, for instance. But if, as is often alleged, those with power want to curtail the press and its investigations, then newspapers are often their own worst enemy.
Britain is the model pointed to by newspaper proprietors in Ireland: it has a press council but no privacy law; its libel laws have been updated and modernised. If that is the model, then why are the police investigating the newspapers? And what are the stories that have raised suspicion and are they in the public interest?
Well, one concerns former British home secretary David Blunkett and his affair with a publisher. Another concerns phone messages from Paul McCartney to his estranged wife Heather Mills. Public curiosity? Maybe. Public interest? Hardly.
Earlier in the summer Mr McDowell published two Bills: the Privacy Bill, and a Defamation Bill which included details of a press council with legislative recognition.
This last Bill, especially the press council element, has been the result of major consultation and the co-operation of much of the industry. Admittedly many British newspapers were, and are probably still, against a press council. Some journalists working for British tabloids refer to Ireland as the wild west, as they can get away with so much more than in the UK.
The industry, representing the publishers, editors and journalists, drew up a code of ethics for newspapers and magazines that would form the basis of the new council. It contains a strong defence of privacy.
As is now well-known Mr McDowell could not get his Defamation Bill approved without including a Privacy Bill. Many in Government felt libel reform was being given too cheaply and did not trust the press to police itself. But it was hoped the Defamation Bill would be passed first, allowing the establishment of a press council, which would have time to bed down and be seen as effective. It was then hoped privacy legislation would prove unnecessary.
Even though the Minister published the Bills simultaneously it was still hoped the discussions and consultations might delay the passing of the Privacy Bill so plan A could be put in place. It was also thought possible that while the Privacy Bill would be passed it might not be given legal effect until the council had shown if it would be effective. Events such as those in the UK and stories such as that concerning the mother of Minister for Health Mary Harney, only serve to harden the resolve of those politicians who want the Privacy Bill.
The Defamation Bill is the result of 15 years of discussion and debate since the publication of proposals for reform by the Law Reform Commission in 1991. Over the past year there has been intense activity by industry groups organising the press council and its code of ethics. There has been no debate or discussion concerning privacy.
The newspaper sector's attitude towards privacy has been strange. Despite the success of several landmark privacy cases, publishers have simply opposed a privacy law despite it being an "unenumerated right" within the Constitution.
A number of cases in the UK as well as a major case concerning Princess Caroline of Monaco at the European Court of Human Rights should have warned them that privacy would become an issue in Irish courts sooner or later. Privacy is not necessarily a bad thing for the media, so long as such legislation recognises the media's role, the public interest and can define privacy. Had the industry engaged in a privacy debate and discussion rather than imitating the negative attitudes of the British press, then we might be looking at something that offers far greater protections to a free and responsible press than Mr McDowell's Bill.
As it is, Irish politicians will look to the UK and wonder how long before their own phone messages are intercepted by a journalist. They will push for the privacy law without any discussion or debate. The Labour Party has announced its support for the Privacy Bill without any consultations. The consultation and openness that have marked the press council debate might be wasted as resentful media watch the rich and powerful seeking and being granted privacy injunctions given at in-camera hearings.
Some might say: "Who cares? Surely the press has only itself to blame?" That would be short- sighted. A press council needs co-operation to work. It would be disastrous if sections of the press considered the council a hindrance to be got around. Some might recall the Sun being admonished by the British Press Complaints Commission for photographs it published of Princess Diana. The Sun dutifully published the PCC's judgment and then republished the offending pictures under the heading: "This is what all the fuss was about folks", totally undermining the PCC itself. If we're not careful that might happen here.
- Michael Foley is a lecturer in the school of media, DIT