We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Last night, Michael McDowell spoke at the launch of a book by Elaine Byrne on corruption in Ireland. During his speech, he spoke about media ownership in Ireland. This is an abridged version of what he said:
IT SEEMS TO me that two issues arise from a consideration of this book. The first of those issues is the way in which we establish and vindicate standards by which our society is to be run and judged.
The second major issue is how we respond as a society to proven departures from those standards.
As to the first issue – the establishment and vindication of standards – it is not enough to investigate by retrospective civil inquiries cases of suspected wrong-doing. Such inquiries are necessary but they are not sufficent.
We need significant deterrents to wrong-doing.
If in politics, “daylight is the best disinfectant”, the role of our media cannot be ignored. The printed press is facing a technological challenge to its very existence. It now seems to be becoming the battleground for thought control as well.
As a society, and as a democracy, we need to face up to the challenge to freedom and liberty which stems from the total absence of laws diversifying the media and their ownership.
Nobody is investing in the print media these days for profit; on the contrary, it seems plain as a pikestaff that investment is driven by considerations of social, political and editorial control and influence.
Our media must be diverse in their ownership and editorial policy. They are not trophy possession for the surplus cash of plutocrats and oligarchs like large hotels and Premiership football clubs.
The Leveson Inquiry, even as we speak, shows how media control and the political system interact, and underlines the mortal dangers to democracy of surrendering ownership and control of our media to the agendas of those with demonstrated low standards coupled with ruthlessness and greed.
In Ireland, the oligarchs are on the march.
They have some allies, alas, in high places who fete them as much as they can get away with while feigning distance from them.
It was interesting to note recently how some who hold office holders took pains to condemn hostile comments made in the past about the Mahon Tribunal while posing for pictures and slapping the backs and whispering in the ears of those who subjected the Moriarty Tribunal to a sustained campaign of vilification and abuse.
If the two parties in our Government cannot unite in challenging on our behalf the culture of impunity fostered by the rich and powerful, they will deserve the consequences. As British politicians are hourly learning to their pain at Leveson, snuggling up to the oligarchs doesn’t seem so good the morning after.
I want to finish by expressing my admiration for the bravery of those who speak truth to power and wealth.
Many journalists, editors and commentators put their professional duties and convictions before their own self-interest. Some alas do not.
Elaine Byrne is brave in her commentary and research.
So also is my good friend, Sam Smyth. Sam has paid a heavy price for standing up for decency in journalism. Some of you will recall that his radio show was closed down to make way for something else in a programme that doesn’t immediately spring to mind. We were assured, of course, that it had “nothing to do” with his coverage of the Moriarty Tribunal.
But those of you who care to Google broadsheet.ie and the words “smoking gun” and “editorial interference” may form a different view of the real agendas already at work. Strange too that Sam personally (and not his paper or the broadcasters) is being sued in the courts. Those cases are obviously not about compensation – they are about silencing an investigative journalist without whose work we would never have known the truth about the former Minister and the coming Oligarch in the first place.
Michael McDowell is a Senior Counsel and former Minister for Justice.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can’t stand Michael McDowell but on this issue, he’s right; serious stuff with serious implications…
Of course McDowell does’nt really mind the media being the mouthpiece of the 1%, its only when it is taken over by one of the 1% he does not approve of, that irk’s him! We could ask McDowell, where was this great media in the 1997-2007 period, when the foundations of economic ruin were being created! Course he had no problem with the O Reilly’s SINDO running the infamous “ITS PAYBACK TIME” headline in 1997 on the eve of the general election! An election that saw he’s party get in to office!!!Michael had no problem with media ownership then……especially when it was supportive of him , the PD’s and Fianna Fail!! McDowell is a prime example of how the 1% and their mouthpieces take the general public for fools. But nay Michael,! some are, and hopefully soon more, are awake to your double standards and hypocrisy!
It is a concern that obrien wishes to control the indo, the times may not last the course.
I’ll not bother listening to McDowell. I heard enough of him, all the years that he backed Bertie Ahern.
yes, but you might give some consideration to McDowell’s own agenda here
What has happened to the Moriarity Tribunal report since Kenny referred it to the DPP?
FG’s ‘friend’ D.O’B is now potentially in a position to influence public opinion to a degree which is at odds with a properly functioning Democracy…and it has been financed on the back of his ESAT consortium’s ‘success’ in the mobile licence bid overseen by a FG Minister…and we ‘laugh’ at the likes of Zimbabwe?!
Just a little bit rich for my taste.
Haven’t the PDs done enough in government in promoting their socially and economically destructive neoliberal agenda. Interested to see McDowell speaking at Elaine Byrne’s book launch – she fairly nailed her colours to the mast with that invite – no doubt there’s a PD sequel on the horizon – Progressive Democratiser 2: Judgment Day
Think it’s the open secret in Irish politics that former PDs are starting to wind up for PDs 2.0
If only I could post a pic of that meme “You don’t say” guy !!!!
Since losing political power and influence(?), Micael appears to have discovered a bunch of principles, probably under the sofa, discarded once Bertie came a-calling. How he must miss those halcyon days on the ‘Sunday Supplement’ when Crusading Sam provided him with the sycophantic platform for his pomposity and PD rhetoric. I don’t recall any hard-hitting, probing interviews regarding the former’s performance in government. An editorial decision? The sad part is the ubiquitous ethical academic cosying up to the career insider. Nothing is as it seems…again.
There is a better way to organise news media, removing the disastrous influence & restrictive narrative of the interests of the top few percent as represented by their media oligarchs.
Democratise it. After all, the ‘fourth estate’ is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy.
Here’s how.
Every adult citizen gets an annual voucher to the value of say, €150, backed by public funds. They may then allocate the total value of the voucher, in any proportions they choose, to the news content providers of their choice. Online transactions would be the obvious way to conduct the allocations.
Eligible content providers must be of an approved structure – Common ownership co-operatives. They cannot be bought & sold, & their managing editors/directors are selected, regardless of intermediate process, by a co-operative one employee/one vote system. Employees are not permitted to have parallel careers, political office or significant business interests.
Such news media providers are not permitted to deliver advertising content or receive advertising revenue.
All will be required to deliver all content via the internet, with free access to users. Some may choose to use print media & may charge a cover price to cover the additional costs of printing & no more.
TV channels will be obliged to aquire news bulletins solely from accredited media providers. Channel slots will be allocated by sealed bid. A media provider may provide content for no more than one channel.
Those concerned about cost should consider that we all pay now thru’ the costs of advertising (that finances current media) added on to the prices of goods & services we buy.
But the present structure hands over editorial control to those who will represent the interests of the corporate & financial elites.
For example, those with an interest in making money off property transactions. And even more money off property ‘bubbles’.
Those concerned with ‘costs’ should also thus consider the economic damage costs from a narrowly controlled media subverting the proper functioning of democracy.
You were going well until ” be of an approved structure –Common ownership co-operatives.” I think they tried that in Russia and China. Would add a different meaning to the description “Red tops” But I agree with your reason for proposing another way.
@ Todo
I’m not sure you’ve understood what I meant by use of a Common Ownership Co-operative structure?
These are private companies, typically under a ‘Co. Limited by Guarantee’ structure. There are thousands upon thousands of these all over the world & in Europe & the US. The point is they cannot be sold on to another private company without similar structure. No outside shareholders are allowed. Thus excluding control by any wannabee oligarchs.
It places control on the journalists collectively (assuming, reasonably, they would be in the majority as employees) on a one employee one vote basis, but places no restrictions on what ideological bent they might collectively have. Nor does it preclude the use of hierarchical internal management for day to day operational/editorial decisions, if a majority of employess so choose.
They will thrive only to the extent that citizens, on a democratic basis, will allocate amounts of the voucher as (sole) income. The state funds the voucher system, but has no say whatever as to where the sums are allocated. (I didn’t make it explicit, but no other forms of income would be allowed.)
There is no meaningful connection with systems of China or Russia.
Plurality of media ownership has been greatly reduced in recent decades. Witness Murdoch’s empire. Corporate power, that furnishes the bulk of revenue (much more than subs or cover prices) has also become similarly concentrated.
Ever wondered why there is virtually no difference in actual policies (regardless of pre-election rhetoric) between the major political parties, here, UK, US, everywhere? Look at media ownership & it’s major source of revenue.
So then we end up with a populist media rather than a corrupt one. Which would be a corrupt one in reality.
i see d indo is doin.a expose on d 60 men runn Ire. what r d journalist doin dont they know d ordinory blokes like me depend on their abilitys to research expose an help to bring d truth out and d wrong doers to bank , pun intended
have your say