Speech by Dr Michael P. Mortell,
President, The National University of Ireland, Cork
at the Conferring of Degrees and Diplomas in the Faculties of Arts and Law Friday,
17 October, 1997 at 3.30 p.m.
 
The Media and Freedom of the Press

I would like to say a few words today about the role of the media in public life in Ireland. By "media" I mean mass media - like newspapers, radio and TV.

The questions I want to raise are prompted by a number of changes in recent years.

Thequestion has to do with responsibility and freedom, the responsible use of the enormous power of the mass media.

Freedom of the Press can no longer be discussed, as it was in the leisurely days of the 18th century, as if we were talking about some few people wishing to express their ideas publicly in pamphlets or newspapers. Those were the days when Thomas Jefferson could say that the freedom of the media is "the most effective way to the truth".

In today's world the distinction between what is personal and what is public has become blurred; some matters which are obviously personal are subject to extremely intrusive reporting.

New technologies have developed which make instant mass communication possible, with instant diffusion of "facts" or opinions where instant responses are often expected, or provoked, with unforeseen consequences. Internationally there is an evolution towards the near monopoly ownershipof the media, and there is a growing cross-linking of ownership of different media. The mass media have thus acquired unprecedented power to shape public opinion and public policy.

The media have also become primarily a profit-making business, with managers who have to show a profit, and shareholders who must get a return on their investment - no different in motivation to companies which make steel or sell hamburgers.

This is the context for some remarks on the central issue in the debate: the freedom of the press. There is a danger that the banner "Freedom of the Press" can be waved, or repeated like a slogan, every time there is a complaint about how the Press uses its freedom. There is also the danger that freedom of the press can be taken to mean that the Press is not accountable to anyone apart from its owners for how it operates.

Article 1 of the US Bill of Rights states: "Congress shall make no law - abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This statement can give the impression that freedom of the press is some kind of absolute or fundamental, and that no attempt should be made to legislate for it.

However, freedom of the press is not an absolute. The French Declaration of Rights, and the various international rights instruments such as the Irish Constitution, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) or the UN International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) all include freedom of speech, but do not confer a privileged status on the Press, as one industry among others.

Freedom of speech is fundamentally a right of individuals, rather than of corporations. But even as the right of a person it is not so absolute that it cannot be qualified or restricted. You cannot shout "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Freedom of speech is one of the central elements of a democracy, in the following sense. If individuals were not free to express their views and to hear the views of others, how could they make up their minds about a whole range of issues on which they have to decide in a democracy? Thus the exercise of democratic political power presupposes freedom of expression. When a regime tries to undermine the democratic rights of people, the first thing they are likely to do is restrict or control freedom of expression, and thereby cover up political corruption.

To sum up, the most basic political principle here is that of the rights of individualsin a democracy, and the link between those basic political rights and the functioning of a democracy. That is why we are naturally suspicious if a Government tries to control or limit the freedom of the press - because it comes very close to controlling what individuals are allowed to read or hear, or to express in public.

But, just because we are reticent about Government control, it does not follow that the media are not accountable to anyone. It does not follow that the media may act as irresponsibly as they wish, and that anything they do is protected under the rubric of "freedom of the press".

Thus, there is a strong tension between the rhetoric of rights and the principle of freedom of the press on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a near monopolistic, profit-driven business which may abuse its freedom in various ways both by inclusion and exclusion.

I am not trying, on this occasion, to sort out all the details of public policy or the role of the media in a democratic society. However, I do think it is something which well-educated citizens should keep under review.

In so far as the media are simply a business whose aim is to increase profits, they have no privileged place in a democracy. In so far as the ownership of the media is confined to relatively few people, the reasons why the media should be protected are undermined: a monopoly or near monopoly of public opinion-making is hardly conducive to democracy. And in so far as the media focus on sensational stories about the private lives of people, they can hardly justify their editorial decisions by appealing to freedom of expression.

I am not advocating State censorship and I think most sensible people would choose to have low standards in the media rather than censorship. I suppose, the price we are willing to pay for as much freedom as possible for the press, is the low standards which the media may sometimes observe.

There is need for ongoing public debate to try, as a society, to bring about a degree of self-regulation in the mass media which would bring them closer to realizing the political ideals which underpin their privileged place in our society. We could, in that way, help to protect those ideals - freedom of expression, democratic government, and the rights of individuals - which are the ultimate justification for a free press.