Press gang
11 December 2006 7:23 pmIrony of ironies. The one piece of technology I was most reluctant to embrace over the years was a mobile phone. And now, after a long gap, my connectivity (and sanity) is restored courtesy of a 3G phone modem.
Going freelance and moving house added to the enforced hiatus, but at last all my bits are coming together.
Timely too, as the current passage of a confusing (to me) piece of legislation through the Seanad (next stop the Dail) needs some attention from those of us who feel that the internet is too important to be conveniently side-stepped when making law.
One of the key aspects of the Defamation Bill 2006 is the setting up of a Press Council. This body “shall adopt a code of standards which shall be adhered to, and the rules and practices to be complied with by the members of the Press Council”.
The Press Council “shall have authority to receive, hear and determine complaints concerning the conduct of its members.
“The Press Council shall appoint a person (in this Act referred to as the ‘Press Ombudsman’) to, hear and determine complaints made to the Press Council concerning the conduct of its members”. There will also be an appeals system.
I’m livid that this new facility for hearing complaints will only be applicable if the complaint concerns a member of the Press Council.
So who can join then to avail of this determination facility?
“The owner of any periodical in circulation in the State or part of the State shall be entitled to be a member of the Press Council”.
Periodical is then defined as “any newspaper, magazine, journal or other publication that is printed, published or issued, or that circulates, in the State at regular or substantially regular intervals and includes any version thereof [my emphasis] published on the internet or by other electronic means”.
On my reading, there’s a big question mark hanging over those who publish exclusively through the internet. What exactly is meant by ‘regular’ or ‘substantially regular intervals’. And ‘any version thereof’ seems to imply an extension of an existing print or broadcast publication.
So if someone has a complaint against a publication or organisation which is a member of the Press Council, that’s where they go.
But what happens if the complaint is directed at a non-member of the Press Council? A blogger? If this Bill is anything to go by, that doesn’t seem to matter.
This situation is wrong, very wrong. And it, once again, reflects a ‘those kids and their pesky computers’ attitude towards the internet by the powers-that-be.
A rude awakening awaits.
January 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
We flagged some of these points at http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/04/13/defamation-bill-will-it-meet-internet-users-needs/
The legislation is poorly drafted on the periodical point, and you hit the nail on the head when you point to it apparently being limited to extensions of existing publications.
But there are two possible ways of looking at this. Either you feel that bloggers, etc. are unjustly excluded from membership of the Press Council and the ability to (e.g.) participate in drawing up the code and adjudicating on complaints; or else you might feel relieved that bloggers, etc. will be spared the hassle of having to deal with the Press Council and the possibility that failure to comply with Press Council rulings might be used against them in subsequent defamation proceedings.
Personally, I’m leaning towards the latter view – under the Bill as it stands there’s little to gain and a lot to lose from including online publications in the definition of periodicals.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Thanks for responding TJ.
My reading of the Bill is that some of the new ‘defences’ seem to provide stronger protection to members of the Press Council. Maybe I’m reading it wrong.
Here’s what I mean: under the defence section titled ‘fair and reasonable publication’ it says that the court shall take into consideration a number of factors in whether something is a fair and reasonable publication.
Part (f) says: “In the case of a statement published in a periodical, the extent to which the publisher of the periodical (ii) abided by decisions of the Press Ombudsman and determinations of the Press Council”.
So if you’re not a member of the Press Council, how can you receive determinations or get a decision from the Press Ombudsman?
I’m worried about a two-tier system arising. if a blogger has the guts to make a stand on an issue and looks to the Press Council or Ombudsman for guidance, will he/she be politely told ‘sorry, doesn’t apply to you’.
Fergus