The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Arts, Sports and Culture has heard that traditional mainstream media in Ireland is now perceived as the “big bad wolf,” and that social media is “eroding” journalism.
Speaking before Wednesday’s Committee, Dave O’Connell, Editor of the Connacht Tribune, said that content published on social media, without any threat of recourse of proceedings, was “not only” eroding journalism, but was “turning it on it’s head because we [the media] are now perceived as the big bad wolf.”
After being asked about the impact of social media by Fianna Fail TD Christopher O’Sullivan, he responded:
“Not only is it eroding it, it is turning it on its head because we are now perceived as the big bad wolf.
“We are the traditional mainstream media which is an easy stick to beat us with. The reality is that we are accountable.”
“At no point in these proceedings or anywhere else are we looking for a free pass. We will face up to the mistakes that we make, but we are alone in that. Social media does not have to face up to the mistakes they make, yet we are the ones that are damned through social media and all of that comment.”
The editor of Galway’s main regional newspaper was addressing the committee, which met with representatives from NewsBrands Ireland, the National Union of Journalists, the Press Council of Ireland, the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland and Office of the Press Ombudsman to discuss alternatives to court action when members of the public have a grievance with local and national publishers.
The committee heard from Susan McKay, the Press Ombudsman who warned of a “threat to democracy” regarding defamation and its impact on the Irish press.
“It is a threat to democracy when we hear newspaper people talking about how they cannot pursue investigations because of the chill effect of the fact that they know they simply cannot afford to defend them,” Ms McKay said.
“Some of the evidence that has been given by the editors today is very disturbing – getting calls from lawyers as they approach deadlines to say if they publish something, they are going to sue them without even specifying what it is. That is clearly a misuse of the law.
“We can draw attention to that, but it would not be our place to advocate that there should be any kind of a charter on it.”
“I would say, and it needs to be said, that we think this applies equally to all parties and all public figures,” she added.
“We are not, as some are, singling out any particular party or individuals with regard to this. However, it is very disquieting to hear the editors talking in the way they have talked today about the chill effect that even the threat of litigation can have.
“I have experience of that as a journalist in having stories just dropped or changed simply because the effort required to defend them would be such that it would be out of proportion.”
Editor of The Business Post, Daniel McConnell, representing NewsBrands Ireland, meanwhile, said it was clear that the current legislation on defamation “is not fit for purpose” – adding that it was vital that it should be reformed.
Mr McConnell expressed concerns and a desire for change, telling the committee that litigation is “expensive, slow and its outcome uncertain.”
“This is especially so in defamation cases. The involvement of juries in High Court actions lengthens considerably both the trial itself and the time taken for it to come on for hearing. Civil jury decisions are erratic and lack transparency. This leads to greatly increased legal costs.”
“On average it takes three to four years for a defamation case to reach trial. Many take longer. Such delays do not do justice to plaintiffs, who, if defamed, should be entitled to have access to the courts and to have their good name vindicated as quickly as possible. Neither can it be said to do justice to defendants, as delays and the threat of sizeable damages and legal costs, exert a chilling effect on the right to free speech,” Mr O’Connell said.
He proposed a serious harm test, similar to that introduced in the U.K., to be brought into force in Ireland.
“The Irish media faces, on an almost daily basis, unwarranted and exaggerated claims for defamation. The costs of defending these cases are significant and these costs are often unrecoverable even where the defence succeeds,” he said.
“A serious harm test for all defamation proceedings would alleviate the costs of such unwarranted claims and the risks to Ireland associated with SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and ‘libel tourism’”.
He said that in the absence of a serious harm test, very wealth claimants would have “little deterrent” to stop them going to law.
“The ‘nuisance’ claimant will have little incentive to seek alternative redress. If such a test is introduced, meritorious claimants will still have open to them non-court based mechanisms and well as the right to go to full trial.”
“NewsBrands would, therefore, urge the Joint Committee to support the introduction of a serious harm test in all defamation cases.”
Mr McConnell, under questioning by the committee, spoke of the work done before a story could reach publication, admitting “sleepless nights” were faced due to pressure to ensure information was correct.
“When questions are put to the organisation on a Thursday or Friday ahead of publication, the response can be from the individual, a press office, media or PR agency or a lawyer,” he said.
“When they come from a lawyer and they state, “We will not tell you why you are wrong, but you are and if you publish any of this we will sue you”, that obviously has an immediate chilling effect on your decision-making. You go back to your journalist and make sure you have your i’s dotted and t’s crossed.
“ If you are satisfied your work is done and you have the story, then you publish. On that doubt on a Saturday night when the button is pressed and the paper is gone to bed, there are sleepless nights.”
Deputy Christopher O’Sullivan, meanwhile said that the “important role the press had” in reporting factual information was “being diminished,” something he said should be addressed from a political point of view. The TD claimed there was a “rise in disinformation and in the far right.”
“I firmly believe that the accelerated rise in disinformation and in the far right, which we have discussed, is down to the fact, as Mr. McConnell mentioned in reference to the editorial process, that people are facing sleepless nights, stress and a chilling effect before publishing a story,” he told the committee.
Chair of the Press Council, Robert Montgomery, said there was a “growing trend of people connected with the far right using our procedures to object to specific articles.”
Senator Annie Hoey also referred to the ‘far-right’ – something which she said needed to be monitored.
“I thank the witnesses for their replies. I am struck by the comment about the far right. As alluded to previously, we are coming into a big 12-month period for elections. It is up to all of us to keep an eye on how those actors may operate in ways that continue to infringe on democracy, reporting and so on.”
The committee heard that there had been “a significant number of cases particularly taken by members of Sinn Féin.”
This was an assertion made by Senator Micheál Carrigy who told the committee: “There is a fear that proceedings will take place if a journalist writes a certain story. That fear is there not to write particular stories about particular parties.”
Deputy Christopher O’Sullivan also honed in on this, adding: “Recent media coverage suggests that there is a feeling that Sinn Féin is using defamation cases more frequently and is taking more lawsuits as a way to perhaps silence the press or media.”
It comes after it emerged in November that TD Chris Andrews was suing both The Irish Times and its political correspondent over an article published in October.