IN ALL probability, the front-page editorial in last Thursday's Irish
Independent advocating support for the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrat alliance had no influence on the outcome of the election. After all, Fianna Fail had its second-worst performance in terms of first-preference votes since 1932 and the outcome was a debacle for the Progressive Democrats.
In any event, there is no reason to believe that editorials, even on the front page, influence anybody on anything. Nor, for that matter, is there reason to believe that opinion columns have any influence either.
But the Irish Independent editorial may have had an influence on other matters, and the attempted exercise of such influence at a crucial stage in the democratic process raises questions about the role of dominant media.
First, on the influence on other matters. Independent Newspapers has for some time been exerting pressure on political parties on a number of issues. The most pressing of these concerns MMDS, and the licence to be a significant player in the provision of non-domestic television signals to large areas of the country.
It is not clear why Independent Newspapers secured such a strong position in this market in the first place. Now this has been threatened by unlicensed deflector operators, who are supported, apparently, by a large number of people, especially in the west.
Independent Newspapers wants to protect its investment in MMDS by galvanising political parties in support of its legal monopoly and undertook an intensive lobbying campaign before the election. The question arises: were guarantees of support over MMDS offered by any of the political parties in return for editorial endorsement?
Independent Newspapers, like other newspapers, has also been active in lobbying on a number of other issues. In common with other newspapers, Independent Newspapers wanted changes in the libel laws, a reduction or an abolition of VAT on newspapers (it would earn the Independent group over £10 million a year) and action against British newspapers here for alleged below-cost selling.
Independent Newspapers is no different from any other large corporation in seeking changes favourable to its own interests. What makes it different is that it can offer considerable media support for whoever promises to accommodate its demands.
This is not to suggest that the editor of the Irish Independent would have been part of any such arrangement or understanding. The editorial of last Thursday, in its strident advocacy of a reduction in all tax rates, including the top rate, certainly reflected his own view.
THERE is a fixed view in the media and beyond that press freedom is an absolute right upon which democratic liberty itself rests. Any suggestion of curtailment of press freedom is regarded as the thin end of the dictatorial wedge. There is much rhetoric about "defending to the death" the right to press freedom, however much one disagrees with how that freedom is exercised and all that.
The absolutist characterisation of press freedom is rubbish and, in all sorts of ways, we acknowledge that. For instance, not even the most fervent advocate of the reform of the libel laws would claim that there should be press freedom to publish defamatory material that the author knows to be false.
Freedom of the press is not a value in itself. It is only an instrument in the pursuit of other more basic values, such as freedom of expression generally, the free flow of information necessary to the proper functioning of democracy, the free interchange of ideas.
We think of press freedom in terms of its value to democracy. But at the core of democracy is the idea that people are equal and that they have an equal say in the governance of society. If the exercise of press freedom in a particular way and in particular circumstances negates the equality that is at the heart of democracy, then, certainly in its absolutist guise, the value of press freedom is nonsense.
Independent Newspapers, no more than any other powerful interest, does not have an absolute right to do what it likes with the power it exerts. If the exercise of such power in a particular way abrogates the equal rights of others, then it is legitimate for the State to curtail such rights.
Last Thursday's editorial advocated policies, tax cuts for everybody and especially the rich and curtailment of public expenditure which would affect especially the poor, which reflected a self-interested bias. The publication of such a partisan editorial on the front page was an attempt to exercise as much influence as the newspaper could command in favour of self-interested policies.
There is a problem anyway with the disproportionate influence by people in the media. Even where an issue of undue dominance does not arise, not everyone has access to the media and therefore not everyone can equally exercise influence through the media. But special problems arise when the largest daily newspaper, part of a group that dominates the print media generally, seeks to exercise its muscle in such a partisan way.
Why should those who control the media (editors and others) have the right to influence disproportionately public debate in a manner that favours their own self-interest and against the interests of the weaker sections of society in such a manner?
OF course, the self-interested rich have as much right as the self-interested poor to take part in the democratic debate: but they have only an equal right. And when they use their muscle through their control of the media in such a blatant way to influence the democratic process in their partisan interest, it is right that society should seek to curtail the exercise of such power.
The curtailment can best be done, not by abrogating editorial discretion, but by the break-up of the conglomerate of Independent Newspapers and by policies that would encourage the emergence of other and diverse editorial voices.
But, of course, Independent Newspapers is not the only or even the dominant voice. That position is occupied by RTE. Its predominance in the electronic media makes it very difficult for other "voices" to emerge and prosper in that sphere. Furthermore, although it is assiduous in ensuring "balance" and "fairness" as it sees them, unavoidably it reflects a bias that is also self-interested.
Bias in the political system is not confined to the influence of the media: it is also hugely conditioned by the manner of the financing of the political system.
But that is an old refrain which will be replayed soon again, and again.