DURING my 30 years as bishop, the media on the whole have treated me fairly. A few columnists directed insulting and offensive re marks at me which, if they had been used about any leader of another church or another faith, would have provoked outrage and protest, not least from other sections of the media, but these were untypical.
However, there are criticisms and suspicions about the media among the clergy at all levels. These are not always justified, but neither can they be simply dismissed as paranoia; there have been bishops and priests who have been unfairly treated by media or whose close friends have been so treated, sometimes posthumously. Their hurt is understandable, their suspicion justified.
It is not my intention to be negative but to suggest ways in which the credibility of the media might be further enhanced, for I regard it as highly important that the media's freedom be respected and guarded.
The media worldwide and in Ireland have provided a great service to society by investigating areas of suspected abuse of power or wrongs and injustices in society, political scandals such as payments to politicians, social evils such as poverty and abusive treatment of children, which many institutions might have preferred not to be seen publicly exposed. Some enlightened legislation has been in part due to media exposure of the darker areas of society.
Our heightened concern and increased understanding in recent years about such matters as child sex abuse and child pornography, violence ag ainst women and cruelty to children, owes something to media uncovering of evil and sordid and brutal activities which could otherwise have remained hidden. It is vitally important to society that the media have the freedom to investigate and report matters where accountability has been lacking and where reform is needed.
The Catholic Church has benefitted from responsible media probing. I am on record as stating that the me dia have done a service to the church in Ireland in regard to scandals which have occurred. Although it could well be argued that the amount of space and time devoted to comment and speculation has been disproportionate, the media have discharged their rightful function in reporting these scandals.
An essential element in responding to scandals is to put in place effective procedures aimed at preventing their recurrence. In regard to the horror of child sexual abuse, for example, the Catholic Church authorities in Ireland now have in place clear and public guidelines for responding to com plaints made against priests or religious.
Few, I think, would deny that there has been a slippage of standards in the media over recent years. Freneticcompetition and the frantic rush for the "scoop" have led to a greater frequency in the passing off of mere speculation as information. Some newspapers seem to rely on people's short memories and to be content to let today's headlines sell today's papers and let tomorrow look after itself.
Still more serious is the blurring of the distinction between facts and comment or between reporting and advocacy. It is surely disturbing when, over a whole series of referendum debates, nearly all the national media, whether in editorials or comment and feature columns, are united on one side of a debate on which the electorate are deeply and, in the case of the recent divorce referendum, almost evenly divided.
Are there not serious questions to be asked here? Does the media see their role as reporting democratic debate in society fairly or to influence debate in one direction solely?
A study of the language used in the media during these debates would be very interesting and I believe would show that the terms used to describe, for example, pro-life and anti-divorce proponents, are invariably pejorative, and those used to describe proponents of the opposite views are invariably favourable.
Furthermore, there seems to be a move in modern media towards what has been called "infotainment", something in between information and entertainment, a kind of creeping tabloidisation of mainstream media. This must be a source of concern to many in the media, as well as to the public.
The media have insatiable appetites. Through a variety of panel discussions, chat shows, access radio or television shows, health and "agony aunt" columns etc, the media have come to take on something of the roles of a police complaints body, a criminal investigation agency, a customer complaints service, a health service monitor, a universal ombuds man, a spiritual and moral counselling service.
In such diverse areas, much care has been taken over time to put in place well-trained professionals and well-tested codes of practice and safeguards, all in the interests of justice and fairness for all. The judicial system, for example, has rules of evidence, standards of proof, presump tion of innocence until guilt is proven, a placing of onus on the accuser to prove guilt rather than on the accused to prove innocence.
Thus, there is a corpus of judicial process which, while it does not gua rantee justice, at least provides conditions in which just verdicts are more likely than unjust ones. I submit that very little thought seems to have been given by the media to developing similar ethical and moral standards governing their own activities.
I BELIEVE there is a need for a more formal code of ethics for media personnel. Media freedom is essential for a free society and healthy democracy. Political control or political manipulation of the media is an abomination, while commercial control of the media needs constant scrutiny, Media monopolies are a danger in a democratic society.
In an ideal world, an ethical code of journalistic practice would be sufficient to prevent abuses. In the real world, something more is needed - a media ethics and standards council which would have power to investigate complaints, whose findings would be made public and would be given some degree of binding force.
There has not been nearly enough analysis, criticism and self-criticism of the media by the media here. Judgment of one's peers is usually the most effective and generally the fairest. It would seem that every institution in Ireland is subject to judgment by the media except the media. One journalist has sounded awar ning note: "I hold no brief for Catholic bishops. However, as a journalist, what I do hold precious are the values of honesty, fairness and balance in reporting all things, plus sensitivity and a keen awareness of what is in the public interest when writing about people's private lives. And that includes priests' and bishops' lives.
"I would only ask my colleagues to be extremely wary of the example set by the English tabloid press, who would have our news values dictated by the lowest common dominator, popular appetites which unscrupulous newspaper bosses and editors have helped to create in the first place. I have seen some alarming signs that journalistic standards in this country are slipping in that direction." (Andy Pollak, The Irish Times, October 3rd, 1995).
Next week Dr Daly will look at media coverage of the Northern Ire- land conflict. Both articles are based on a talk he gave at the recent confer- ence on Media and the Church at All Hallows College in Dublin.