For or Against Press Councils?

national | arts and media | opinion/analysis Friday December 12, 2003 01:59 by Edwin Lee edwin_lee at vodafone dot ie

A Dummy's guide to the Press Council issue

As the decision for a statutory or self-regulatory Press Council draws to a close, here's a brief introduction to the background of Press Councils & Libel Reform and how the public needs a sharper eye on these issues.

In January 2003, the National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) submitted a proposal to the government for an establishment of an independent Press Council and Press Ombudsman. It would be composed of editors, journalists and other prominent people within the Irish media and they would sign up to a Code of Standards and Press Code. Under this initiative, complaints made to the media by ordinary citizens will be far easier and to a lesser extent, cheaper as it will by pass the huge costs associated with a High Court libel action. However, a complete polar opposite model is being pushed by the Legal Advisory Group, chaired by Hugh Mohan SC; a statutory model and would consist of Government appointees who would draw up their own Code of Standards and have complete power of the courts to enforce those codes. Strong criticism against the government’s decision is mounting from within as well as internationally. In November the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) that represents 18,000 publications, has called on the government to abandon its proposals as it inhibits press freedom and sets a poor example for democracy, and urged for an independent press council instead.

Before addressing the strength and weaknesses of both models, we must ask why any press council is to be established in Ireland. The Irish press is only accountable to the Irish people yet, arguably, press standards have been slipping and credibility of our newspapers are declining due to defamation and inaccuracy as well as invasions of privacy, therefore some form of self-regulation is needed for the press. Many countries in Europe have already established independent press councils such as Britain’s Press Complaint Commission and Germany’s Presserat, and if a statutory model succeeds in Ireland, it will be the first of its kind in the democratic world. Another reason is to remedy the absurdly high cost of seeking redress and summoning judges and resources for a libel case, both models propose a more cheaper and efficient way, making it easier for the ordinary citizen to seek compensation. The advantages of an independent press council are far more attractive than a statutory one, as any sort of regulation by the government alone is naturally seen as undemocratic and suspicious, to say the least. The independent council would be much more effective in dealing with the issues concerned because its appointees would be drawn from various academic fields under journalism & media, though most likely they would be high-ranking media proprietors and editors, but more importantly they would be outside the influence of the government. This also means that independent appointees may also draw up a more complex and comprehensive Code of Standards than government appointed ones since politicians would have no say in the matter. That is not to say that the government is incapable of finding qualified appointees, however people with experience in the media would be more suitable to find the right people for the job.

The disadvantages of an independent council are more shadowy than a statutory one. While the pro-independent groups insist that their idea is more democratic and good for public interest, I can’t help but feel a chill when I hear that. One must always remember that the any media outlet exists as a company, i.e. a business that operates for profit. Can you name any radio, television, newspaper or magazine that does not advertise or have some form of sponsorship? It’s plain to see that mainstream media entities are heavily dependent on the revenues that advertising brings in and it may even dictate their opinions and content. The firing of a journalist because he/she criticises one of the newspaper’s sponsors or advertisers is one such example of blatant disregard of press responsibility. Where is the democracy in that? You don’t have to paint like Picasso to see that obvious flaw in professional journalism. This goes to questioning the merits of an independent council; how sure can we be that any person appointed by media owners would act autonomously from their company’s own interests? In other words, if the council is set up to monitor the media, then who will monitor the council?

The Coalition’s present Programme for Government includes a commitment to reform the libel laws, which is also required under the European Convention of Human Rights. Those changes in the law have led the Legal Advisory Group to propose for the establishment of a statutory press council. It will consist of nine members appointed by the government and would be responsible for drawing up their own Codes of Standards and will make all decisions on alleged breaches on those codes. Compared to the likes of Sweden, our libel laws are barbaric and grossly unfair. Any average citizen that feels their reputation has been tarnished by the media has only but one option to go to court. The financial costs and procedures of undertaking a libel action is enough to make someone regret going to court in the first place. Even if the average person does eventually win the case, the reward may even outweigh the initial costs, and need I say more if they lose. So it’s obvious that if you have the resources and don’t mind losing a million or two, the libel laws only serve the tiny minority of elites and leaves the majority of people out in the cold. Therefore, they argue for a statutory press council to work in tandem with reformed libel laws, enabling any person to seek redress without putting their financial assets at risk, and this is something that an independent press council would fail to achieve, so they speculate. This so far has been the government’s pitch in forwarding the idea of a statutory press council, but I doubt it would only be confined to this way. Sooner or later, a statutory council would lead itself to some form of abuse. It’s an inherent aspect that such a powerful tool given to a select few would brew corruption, in other words, with great power comes great responsibility. But is responsibility something that’s synonymous with our government today? With so much negativity and criticism against politicians in the mainstream media lately, it all seems too coincidental that the government releases its proposals at this time. Yet the same question can be applied to the other side of the spectrum, why have the NNI and other bodies only now proposed for a non-statutory alternative? For years many people have demanded reform of the libel laws and such a voluntary system could have been established a long time ago. It was a matter of who will make the first move and the other side will counter attack with their own proposals, hardly in the interests of the public.

Having the government controlling the media is indeed an intimidating aspect, especially under this atmosphere of political sleaze and rampant corruption. So it is difficult to see how these people can effectively enforce the laws and standards without pursuing their own interests at the same time. It is likely that government intervention in the media leads to reduction in the freedom of the press and that is the biggest argument against the statutory model. There needs to be more public debate and discussion regarding the whole issue of press councils and so far it has only been limited to both opposing parties. After all, the press is accountable to us the public as we are the consumers of media. We cannot afford to be negligent of this whole issue- if the power of press councils falls into the hands of a few self-serving politicians and corprocrats, then they would ultimately be able to dictate the course of our society by puppeteering the media to their own agendas. One can take the American mainstream media for example, major news organisations such as Fox News, CNN, NBC and ABC are owned by a very select few. It has been well noted, especially of Fox News that the US government plays an active role in deciding what should and should not be aired to the American public. Take for example the recent Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA) protest in Miami this November- Over 10,000 trade union workers, activists and environmentalists protested against the expansion of NAFTA into South America that would cut jobs at home and exploits cheap labour abroad. Not only did the American media fail to highlight the protestors’ true objectives, it also ignored the extent of police brutality when non-embedded journalists along with 250 protestors were beaten and arrested, while the cameras of Fox and CNN stood safely among the ranks of police and ignored what was really happening. The media were also conveniently supportive of the war against Iraq, making the public believe it was a righteous cause to oust tyrant Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. Subsequently, reportage over failing to find weapons of mass destruction and ‘collateral’ damage of civilians were restricted by the likes of Fox News for fear of being reprimanded by the US government. Though this is not America, this same form of abuse in misleading the public exists here too and Press Councils will be unable to address and fix these problems.

Despite this call for media freedom, pro-democracy and laissez-faire by the NNI and WAN, can our media regulate itself properly and ensure every journalist out there will adhere to their code of standards? The answer is blatantly no, unless of course the council is telepathic. It only takes one individual like media mogul Rupert Murdoch to upset the balance of press freedom and press accuracy. In conclusion, the establishment of any major press council, be it independent or statutory, will be a bad idea as it will lead to some form of abuse. If one is to be established, then it should only be restricted in dealing with the issue of improving libel laws. While some regulation of the press is needed, I propose that every major news organisation should voluntarily set up their own ‘mini’ press council spearheaded by the standards set down by the NUJ instead of forcing them to adhere to one major council, as is being pushed by both opposing parties. In the case of a significant breach of press standards or complaint to the media, these mini press councils along with the public and government can get together to discuss and resolve the issue in a true, old-fashioned democratic style- A style that has been tragically forgotten.