APPENDIX 33
Memorandum submitted by National Newspapers
of Ireland
I am writing to you on behalf of the National
Newspapers of Ireland (NNI), the representative body for Ireland's
national newspapers: six dailies, five Sundays and the weekly
farming newspaper.
This submission may be particularly relevant
given that there are a number of Irish newspapers that circulate
within the United Kingdom, and in particular in Northern Ireland.
By way of background, may I explain that Ireland
is one of only two countries in Europe which does not have a self-regulatory
system in place for complaints against newspapers. The only option
open to citizens in this country who feel aggrieved by a newspaper
article is to take the legal route—a costly and, very often,
a daunting option for many people.
NNI believes that there is a very great need
for the establishment of a system where the ordinary citizen can
take a complaint about a newspaper article. However, the industry
feels unable to put such a system in place due to the archaic
nature of our libel laws. There has been no substantive change
to the Irish libel laws since the Defamation Act 1961 which was
almost an exact replica of the UK Act of 1952.
I won't go into details here about how our libel
laws operate and the nature of the reform which is required. NNI
has been campaigning for many years for the introduction of much-needed
reform and we are on record since 1997 as being willing to establish
and fund a self-regulatory mechanism for press complaints once
significant law reform is introduced.
NNI has carried out extensive research into
the operation of a self-regulatory system. We have held lengthy
discussions with those who operate similar systems in other European
countries. The experience of these countries tells us that self-regulation
does work.
We have worked very closely with the Press Complaints
Commission in the UK in formulating our proposal for Government
as to how a system would operate in Ireland. The PCC has been
enormously helpful in affording us the benefit of many years of
experience and expertise and representatives from the PCC have
also met with our Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
in support of self-regulation.
Much debate has taken place in this country,
particularly between politicians and the media, about whether
self-regulation or a statutory system is the best way to regulate
the press. This arises generally because of the inevitable conflict
between those who exercise power in all its different forms and
those who scrutinise them.
Self regulation may not be perfect but it can
deliver more for ordinary citizens than a formal legal system
which, too often, is the prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Self regulation produces effective self restraint
and works in the vast majority of disputes between individuals
and newspapers. It is free and easy and quick and produces responsibility
without impingement on freedom.
Outlined below are some of the reasons why we
believe in the effectiveness of self-regulation.
ACCESSIBILITY
Self regulation works for ordinary people because
it is easily accessible, it's free and the result is speedy.
Procedures are simple and easy to understand
and the process is carried out away from the glare of publicity.
The law can all too easily operate in the headlamps of media attention.
Self-regulation works in private and without any of the apparatus
of the Courts which the ordinary citizen could find off putting.
FLEXIBILITY
Self regulation does not work in an adversarial
manner which is an aspect of the legal route which ordinary people
find intimidating. The primary role of a self-regulatory system
is to conciliate and to resolve disputes. The facility to have
flexibility of response means that the matter can be resolved
to the satisfaction of both parties whether it be the publication
of an apology, a letter which puts forward a different viewpoint
or another means agreed by both parties.
SPEED OF
RESPONSE
If something has gone wrong, the person who
feels aggrieved wants it put right as soon as possible—not
two years later when everybody has forgotten what was said in
the first place (not to mention the six year statute of limitation
period which exists in Ireland).
A self-regulatory system can approach a dispute
in a practical way and act in an informal manner which a formal
legal system could not. It is a common sense way of getting things
done quickly and in doing so helps the complainant get the matter
resolved whilst the offending article is still fresh in the public
consciousness.
SELF REGULATION
CAN COVER
A WIDE
RANGE OF
ISSUES
The range of issues which a self-regulatory
system can protect can be governed by a Code of Practice which
is central to the effectiveness of self regulation.
A code delivers two things which are extremely
important. Firstly it binds all editors to a set of ethical standards.
Against these standards, editors themselves make judgements about
how they report the news and the system can judge complaints.
Furthermore, the public has a clear understanding of what standards
it can expect of newspapers across a whole range of issues.
The Code does not just deal with matters such
as inaccuracy and intrusion. It also sets tough standards on how
news is gathered. It also provides added protection for particularly
vulnerable groups of people. This could not be done in a formal
legal system or by the development of common law.
The Code is a powerful tool because it is written
by editors themselves for editors and as such carries moral authority.
Editors cannot turn round and say that the Code is unworkable.
They are the industry's rules and that makes it all the more embarrassing
for an editor when he has to own up to breaking them.
A statutory Code would inevitably be seen not
as a baseline from which to make editorial judgements (which is
what a voluntary Code is) but as a straightjacket to try to get
out of.
Which is more effective: damages levied against
a newspaper which would be the result of some form of legal remedy;
or a critical adjudication based on the editors' own Code?
Damages—and the inherent suspicion that
they have only been levied because of some interesting material
contained in the publication—become a marketing tool, not
a deterrent.
However a critical adjudication by a self-regulatory
system which would have to be published in full and with due prominence
by an editor is a different matter. A critical adjudication is
an admission by an editor that he or she has broken the rules
which he or she framed and agreed to abide by. Far from being
a marketing tool, it instantly becomes a tool in the armoury of
the competition.
Would law strengthen the ability of newspapers
to act in the interests of the public or can only voluntary self
regulation do that?
In theory anybody who is likely to be at the
centre of an intrusive story would be able to prevent publication
if the article was not clearly in the public interest. However,
in practice the only people who would be likely to use-pre-publication
injunctions would be those with the money and the knowledge to
use the law—and something to hide. While the principle may
be unobjectionable in theory, interlocutory injunctions would
be used by the villains and rogues and the corrupt to keep unpalatable
facts out of newspapers. That would be a body blow to investigative
journalism, and to the public interest.
Self regulation—which is about editors
being responsible for what they have written in their newspapers
and defending it after publication—does not offer that possibility.
Which is more likely to provide a harmonious
relationship between Government and press: statutory controls
or self-regulation?
As stated earlier, there has always been and
always will be tension between those who exercise power and those
who scrutinise the powerful. It is right that such tension exists—but
there is a world of difference between tension that is healthy
to a democracy, and conflict which is not.
In conclusion, NNI wholeheartedly believes in
self-regulation of the press and we are grateful for the support
which the PCC has lent in recent years to our campaign for the
establishment of a system for press complaints in Ireland. In
addition, NNI has benefited greatly from its involvement with
the Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE),
an organisation which was the brainchild of the PCC.
10 January 2003
| 
