There was a discussion on radio on Sunday about the "threat" posed to freedom of the press by the proposed statutory press council.
One participant, who had a clear self interest, said our fragile democracy depended on there being a press independent of government and if the government had a facility for nobbling the press, such as a press council, then our democracy would be imperilled. The contention was given added weight by the formidable UK media commentator, Roy Greenslade, who argued along similar alarmist lines.
Let's be clear, there is nobody arguing for a press council packed with Fianna Fáil hacks (or, worse, PD hacks) who would "do in" freedom of the media at a hand's turn. At least there is nobody I know who is advocating this.
What is proposed is that a statutory press council, comprised of independent people - that is independent of government and of the media itself - be established and that this press council be in a position to impose sanctions on the media for the abuse of its powers. Far from this being a threat to democracy it is a requirement of democracy for reasons I will outline.
Freedom of the press, theoretically, is an essential ingredient of democracy - "theoretically" because arguments advanced for press freedom are founded on an unspoken assumption that the press is accessible to citizens at large, and that there is a diversity of voices representative of views generally in society.
In reality there is no such thing. The media here is dominated by a few conglomerates, whose objective is not to enrich democracy but to make profits.
If along the way democracy is enriched then ok, but if along the way democracy is impoverished, the privacy of citizens is unjustifiably invaded, if reputations are unfairly damaged, if terrible hurt is caused to, say, already grief-stricken families, so be it.
So let's not go dewy-eyed about the brittle flower of press freedom The press is no flower and it exercises far more than flower-power.
There is another reason to be cautious about the press freedom hoopla. Not alone is the press prone to boost its profits at the expense of the rights and feelings of citizens but it is also likely to use news and opinion and advance agendas, all to the further enrichment of its owners.
It is with hesitation that I refer yet again to the example of Tony O'Reilly. He has made a major financial killing on the sale of Eircom, even though his involvement in Eircom, arguably, has had a damaging consequence on the Irish telecommunications infrastructure. Will a single one of the newspapers in this stable - the Irish Independent, Evening Herald, Sunday Independent, Sunday World, Sunday Tribune, Star - even make reference to this issue? Will one of them examine O'Reilly's involvement in Waterford Glass, the £30,000 paid in June 1989 to Ray Burke by one of the companies he controls, the low editorial standards that pertain across the newspapers he controls, as shown by the Liam Lawlor debacle?
Given the extent of media ownership enjoyed by O'Reilly and the scope and range of his other interests, plus the political clout he has sought to exert, isn't there something disquieting about the self-censorship engaged by the media he controls on the issues pertaining to his financial and corporate interests, which have considerable public ramifications?
Press freedom, in the first instance, is for the owners and controllers of the press, and the rhetoric about press freedom should be moderated to reflect this. And because of the influence the press exerts, the harm it can and does inflict, the distortion it brings to what passes for democratic debate, some regulation of the media is required.
That regulation should pertain to the control by individuals or individual corporations over multiple media outlets (there is a good argument to control this beyond what might be thought necessary by competition policy), invasions of privacy and abuse of reputations (including the reputations of people recently deceased).
And the regulation should be exerted by a press council appointed independently of government and the media itself - for instance, representatives of the judiciary, trade unions, business organisations, the Equality Authority, women's groups and NGOs.
Furthermore, it should have the power to exert real control, including the power to impose massive fines and, where appropriate, suspension of publication (or of transmissions, in the case of broadcasting media organisations). And the benefit (or one of the benefits) of this being a statutory press council is that its operations could/would be overseen by the courts, thereby ensuring compliance with the requirements of constitutional justice and constitutional rights.
It is fair that this should be accompanied by a change to the libel laws. But any such change should ensure that only where there is a legitimate public interest involved and where all reasonable care is taken by the media, should there be exemption from the present punitive sanctions of those laws.
There is rightly at present a public appetite for such changes in the light of the Liam Lawlor debacle, the Government and the Oireachtas should strike now.