Seamus Dooley Is Irish Secretary of the National Union of Journalists

Seamus Dooley is Irish Secretary of the National Union of Journalists. Prior to his appointment as a full-time official he served as a sub editor with the Irish Independent. He began his journalistic career with the Tullamore Tribune and is former editor of the Roscommon Champion.

National Union of Journalists
Executive Summary

Seamus Dooley

The NUJ represents more than 90pc of full-time journalists in Ireland. We have a Code of Professional Conduct (overleaf) and an Ethics Council.

This union strongly believes that the media should be accountable and should adhere to the highest ethical standards.

The NUJ has long demanded both defamation law reform and the introduction of a Press Council - two separate issues.

The case for libel reform has already been made by the Law Reform Commission and the Commission on the Newspaper Industry.

We support the creation of the post of Ombudsman, whose office would be funded by the newspaper industry. We favour a system of co-regulation, funded but not controlled by the industry. The Ombudsman would be independent of the industry and would report to a Press Council.

That Press Council would be reflective of the interests of newspaper publishers, editors and journalists, as well as of civic society.

The role of the Ombudsman would be to deal with public complaints. The Ombudsman would adjudicate on complaints and would order appropriate action - either an apology, a retraction or right of reply - and would have the right to insist on determining the prominence to be given to the form of redress recommended.

There would be a right of appeal to the Press Council, either by the complainant or the newspaper. We are currently working with representatives of newspaper publishers on the establishment of a steering committee which will be responsible for drawing up a Code for the Press and putting structures in place for the appointment of an Ombudsman and representative Press Council.

We oppose the recommendation contained in the Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation regarding Press Regulation.

The recommendations are strongly at variance with the position of the Council of Europe as set out in Resolution 1003(1993) on the Ethics of Journalism. Paragraph 37 specifically recommends the establishment of self-regulatory mechanisms.

There are many examples of successful co-regulatory mechanisms. It is regrettable that the Advisory Group and indeed the Government have sought to devise a system, which would further embed lawyers into Irish journalism rather than following best international practice.

Code of conduct

1. A journalist has a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards.

2. A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of the freedom of the press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. He/she shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship.

3. A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation.

4. A journalist shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that correction and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised when the issue is of sufficient importance.

5. A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means. The use of other means can be justified only by overriding considerations of the public interest. The journalist is entitled to exercise a personal conscientious objection to the use of such means.

6. A journalist shall do nothing which entails intrusion into anybody's private life, grief or distress, subject to justification by overriding considerations of the public interest.

7. A journalist shall protect confidential sources of information.

8. A journalist shall not accept bribes nor shall he/she allow other inducements to influence the performance of his/her professional duties.

9. A journalist shall not lend himself/herself to the distortion or suppression of the truth because of advertising or other considerations.

10. A journalist shall mention a person's age, sex, race, colour, creed, illegitimacy, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation only if this information is strictly relevant. A journalist shall neither originate nor process material which encourages discrimination, ridicule, prejudice or hatred on any of the above-mentioned grounds.

11. No journalist shall knowingly cause or allow the publication or broadcast of a photograph that has been manipulated unless that photograph is clearly labelled as such. Manipulation does not include normal dodging, burning, colour balancing, spotting, contrast adjustment, cropping and obvious masking for legal or safety reasons.

12. A journalist shall not take private advantage of information gained in the course of his/her duties before the information is public knowledge.

13. A journalist shall not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of his/her own work or of the medium by which he/she is employed.

Policy Position presented by Irish Secretary, Séamus Dooley at Consultative Conference on the Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation, December 1 2003.

"ALL Men pretend the Licentiousness of the Press to be a publick Grievance, but it is much easier to say it is so, than to prove it, or prescribe a proper Remedy; nor is it the easiest Grievance to Cure".

Daniel Defoe, writing in 1704, in his essay on regulation of the media was acknowledging a truth, which remains universal: all can identify the ills of the Press, the challenge is to identify a cure, which may not be greater than the disease.

In setting out the NUJ response to the Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation I propose to deal specifically with the recommendation in relation to the establishment of a Press Council.

The NUJ represents more than 90pc of full-time journalists in Ireland. We have a Code of Professional Conduct and an Ethics Council.

Just as Defoe concluded that State control was a danger to freedom of expression we contend that the model of regulation proposed by the Report would undermine the Press in Ireland.

This union strongly believes that the media should be accountable and should adhere to the highest ethical standards. Society has a right to expect that those who take upon themselves the role of watchdog, the self-appointed enforcer of standards, should operate in a manner which respects the rights and dignity of citizens.

Where journalists or media organisations fall short of acceptable standards, either inadvertently, in the haste to meet a deadline, or through bad editorial judgment, there must be a mechanism to enable those injured by that failure to seek redress. Newspapers are fallible and journalists do make mistakes. Journalism is not an exact science.

News is prepared and presented under pressure, in the hothouse atmosphere of a newsroom, frequently under-resourced. Newsrooms are not sociology departments and all too often there is little time for reflection on the wider context or consequences of an editorial decision.

This is not to excuse sloppy journalism or shoddy practices. In any debate on media standards the primacy of truth and honesty must be asserted.

This is especially so at a time when commercial pressure is leading to a dumbing down of standards, manifest in the growth of chequebook journalism and increasing evidence of alarming invasions of the privacy of private citizens, with no obvious regard for the public interest.

The NUJ has long demanded both defamation law reform and the introduction of a Press Council - two entirely separate issues.

At our Irish Delegate Conference in October 2001 we confirmed our policy, enunciated in 1999, favouring the creation of the post of Ombudsman, whose office would be funded by the newspaper industry.

The Ombudsman would be independent of the industry and would report to a Press Council. That Press Council would be reflective of the interests of newspaper owners and journalists as well as of civic society.

The role of the Ombudsman would be to deal with public complaints. The Ombudsman would adjudicate on complaints and would order appropriate action - either an apology, a retraction or right of reply - and would have the right to insist on determining the prominence to be given to the recommended form of redress. There would be a right of appeal to the Press Council, either by the complainant or the newspaper.

Crucially, the Press Council would also serve as a protection for the Ombudsman against editors or owners who refused to co-operate with his/her office or frustrated his/her work. It is envisaged that the Ombudsman would publish an annual report, which would be circulated via the newspapers.

The Ombudsman should not be seen as a threat to journalists or as a mere enforcer of regulations. He/she, working with the Press Council, could play an important role in developing codes and setting standards and in encouraging greater debate on professional issues.

We do not believe that the government should, through a State-appointed board, determine what is acceptable in terms of taste and decency.

Mr. Cullen has outlined the process by which the industry proposes to devise a system of co-regulation, funded but not controlled by the industry.

That steering committee will be responsible for drawing up a Code for the Press. Achieving consensus on that code may not be easy. The NUJ, as guardians of the Code of Conduct which almost all Irish journalists share, will be insisting that the issue of cash inducements for news be dealt with.

We cannot condone journalism based on cash for stories. We disown the corrupt practices engaged in by some media organisations driven by a commercial agenda of market share at the expense of journalistic standards.

The Code will also have to guarantee editorial independence and freedom from commercial interference by owners or advertisers.

The record of the current Government in appointing the State board gives grounds for serious concern. For instance, the principle of trade union and worker representation has been abandoned by various ministers - with party affiliation and geographical considerations being primary factors in selecting board members.

The record of this Government in tearing the heart out of the Freedom of Information Act also provides a salutary warning to those who would place direct and indirect control of Press regulation in the hands of politicians.

There will be tension between politicians and the Press - long may that be so - and the solution is not to undermine the Press.

Regardless of who is in power, this union will resist a Press Council appointed by the Government. A free, independent Press cannot be controlled by a State-appointed Press Council whose Code of Conduct would be mandatory.
This is strongly at variance with the position of the Council of Europe as set out in Resolution 1003(1993) on the Ethics of Journalism. Paragraph 37 specifically recommends the establishment of self-regulatory mechanisms.

We do not believe that a Government-appointed Press Council would have the necessary independence or credibility to inspire the confidence of the public. But it is vital that any self-regulatory body would have a statutory basis and would be recognised in law.

A Media Ombudsman and Press Council would require protection and privilege in the conduct of their duty. The Commission on the Newspaper Industry drew attention to this issue in recommending a mechanism of press regulation which was not controlled by Government.

In any regulatory system we will insist that journalists will represent the profession of journalists at the table, not editorial managers or those with a commercial agenda.

One of the failures of the PCC in the United Kingdom is its subservience to the narrow, commercial interests of the newspaper publishers which ensured that our union could never take part in its activities. In contrast, the most successful models of regulation, including the Swedish model, include trade union representation and recognition of all media interests as equal partners. In Ireland our unique social partnership ethos makes the task of consensus easier.

There must also be genuine public participation in the Press Council, with representatives of civic society who can challenge the assumptions of media practitioners, including NUJ members!

If we want the trust and respect of the public for self-regulation we must prove ourselves worthy of that trust. Participation of civic society, however that is achieved, will be an essential element of the Press Council.

Because of the dominance in the market of one significant player it is essential that the Ombudsman and Press Council be fireproofed from the perception of influence from newspaper owners.

I should point out that unlike newspaper owners the NUJ has no commercial interest in libel reform or press regulation. We favour libel reform because the current laws are restrictive and do not serve the public interest.

We favour Co-regulation because it is good for journalists and journalism.

It is understandable that the question will be asked, "What is the incentive for an editor to comply with the findings of an Ombudsman appointed under a co-regulatory system?"

The answer lies in the simple concept of self-interest. No Editor or newspaper publisher will risk suffering public humiliation - with the consequent damage to public credibility, by constant admonishment from the Ombudsman. If recent media trends are a guide then commercial rivals will be only too happy to use their columns to highlight the sins of erring competitors.

If Co-regulation does not work, if we do not meet the challenge, Government might then be justified in introducing a more restrictive form of regulation than that outlined by the NNI and this union.

There is a need for regulation and for highest standards. But those who advocate statutory regulation must demonstrate that the press in Ireland have failed in their duties to such an extend that they are in need of greater control and restraint than any other media in the free world.

Only where democracy has been abandoned or not yet discovered does State control of press regulation flourish. Have we really failed in our task to such an extent that we must stand apart?