This article was written for submission to the public consultation of the future of media. As this is the case it is written using their working definitions. To understand this article fully it will be necessary to understand that by the Commissions standards ‘Public Service Media’ is taken to refer to publicly funded and publicly owned media, ie RTÉ etc. ‘Public Service Content Providers’ will refer to the private sector of media in Ireland.
Approx. 5800 words = Approx 18 minutes reading time
Written by Diarmaid Ó Conaráin
I can think of no more prominent an issue or a more fitting place to begin this submission than with regards to the guidelines third prompt question: How should media be governed and regulated? More specifically the second and third sub questions regarding media consolidation and declining pluralism, and current legislative and regulatory controls for public service media.
Public service media is highly and immorally monopolized in Ireland. Irish citizens are currently subjected to one of the most concentrated mainstream media landscapes in any democracy. As a consequence we receive much of our news and information from private entities that have consolidated so much of one industry that an EU Commission report deemed Irelands situation to require urgent action.
The EU Commissions Report on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland from 2016 stated openly in its conclusion “We conclude that there are extremely grave concerns about the high concentration of media ownership in the Irish market, and in particular regarding the position of INM and Mr. Denis O Brien. Accumulation of communicative power within the news markets is at endemic levels and so Ireland has one of the most concentrated media markets of any democracy. This feature – alarming in itself – must be viewed alongside the other gravely concerning aspects of the Irish media landscape which we have highlighted: sustained and regular threats of legal action by Mr. Denis O Brien to media organisations and journalists who are engaged in news-gathering or reporting about his activities, and the ‘chilling effect’ of the current defamation laws. This is a toxic combination for freedom of expression and media plurality.”
Directly following the above statement the report states “It is now imperative that urgent action is taken, and seen to be taken, to reassure journalists, media organisations and the wider public, and to comply with the terms of Article 11 of the Charter and Article 10 ECHR.”
While section 6.8 states “Almost two decades have passed since the Council of Europe’s 1999 Recommendation on promoting media pluralism came into being, along with the Explanatory Memorandum which described how, “democracy would be threatened if any single voice within the media, with the power to propagate a single viewpoint, were to become too dominant”. Unfortunately this has been proven true in recent years. The 33 to 1 observation that was recorded in 2015 demonstrated how overwhelming an influence the mainstream media could provide when it deemed fit to. In a two week period across all major publications it was observed that there were 33 pro repeal articles, and only 1 promoting saving the 8th amendment. This highlights as I will reference again later that it is of utmost importance that the public service media facilitate regular and open debate on political issues where public service content providers fail to deliver impartiality.
Section 3.4 on media ownership states “Ireland has one of the most concentrated media markets of any democracy. Accumulation of what Professor Baker described as “communicative power” within the news markets is at endemic levels, and this, combined with the dominance of one private individual media owner in the State, creates what the Media Reform Coalition has described as “conditions in which wealthy individuals and organisations can amass huge political and economic power and distort the media landscape to suit their interests and personal views”. This should undoubtedly highlight that Irelands public service content providers market is entirely compromised. This is not the wild allegation of a citizen unhappy with the news he is receiving. This is a factual matter in terms relative to all other democracies and their media ownership, as concluded by an extensive European Union Commission investigation.
In any other industry we could assume the motive to consolidate such percentages of a market could be considered as simple as further profit. Leaving aside that any monopoly will subject the population to potentially unfair price fixing, public service content providers simply cannot be afforded the luxury of the benefit of the doubt. The reason why becomes clear when informed of the work of men such as Edward Bernays. Working in the field of public relations and producing books such as Engineering of Consent, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and Propaganda, the mere titles of these works hint at the very problem we face today in Ireland, and indeed around the globe. The content of these works regarding the hidden moulding of public opinion and political narratives coupled with todays landscape of media ownership have inevitably produced a deeply undemocratic society of late. Regardless of our beliefs regarding the 8th amendment, such a disproportionate promotion of one side of a referendum cannot be deemed as impartial public service content. In reality it stands as proof that the modern communicative infrastructure that has been developed have brought Edward Bernays’ ideas to life to an extent even he may not have foreseen. These two quotes in particular not only provide insight into some of the thoughts of Bernays, but a frightening modern day reality with regards to public service content providers.
“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”
“As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for the invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.”
Returning for a moment to the EU Commission report of 2016, section 5, Legal Barriers to Addressing Current Media Concentration or Ownership. It begins stating “It is understood, both from Dr. Flynn’s report for the CMPF of March 2016 and from quotations given to multiple media outlets, that there is a school of thought amongst a number of unknown Irish politicians which suggests that no retroactive step could be taken which would alter current media ownership concentration due to the protection of property rights. If the protection of property rights is being suggested to be a legal barrier, we are firmly of the view that this is based upon flawed legal analysis.”
Section 5.4 articulates that the constitution has left provision for such immoral, undemocratic, and dangerous situations to the common good. “Again, as with the Constitutional protection for freedom of expression, this is a qualified right. It is clear that the State may restrict the exercise of property rights with a view to reconciling this with the exigencies of the common good; and that the courts have jurisdiction to inquire into whether any restriction or deprivation of property rights is in accordance with the principles of social justice and whether the measure is necessary given the demands of the common good. The concepts of “the principles of social justice” and the “common good” plainly may encompass both the protection of other qualified Constitutional rights (such as freedom of expression, in this instance) or international norms (such as protection of the plurality of the media, particularly under Articles 11 of the Charter and 10 of the ECHR).”
While section 5.5 continues “Early cases established that compulsory purchase provisions concerning land, provided there is compensation paid, do not offend these Constitutional property rights: see e.g. Fisher v. Irish Land Commission [1948] IR 3. There is nothing in either Article 40.3.2˚ or Article 43 which prevents action being taken in relation to the concentration of media ownership. This is a jurisprudential red herring.”
Above are two of the most pressing justifications for interventionism with regards to media ownership in Ireland. The right to freedom of expression is threatened when public service content providers decide to sync their narratives and censor any and all opposition. It is borderline obliterated when public service media then refuse to platform opposition to provide genuine pluralism. The concentration of ownership in the private sector is in itself a significant threat to media pluralism in Ireland. Again this is not a disgruntled opinion, but an objective reality in relative terms. The Commission report does stipulate that there can certainly exist doubt between the balancing of property rights and the common good, though they saw no relevance of that debate to this particular situation. Leaving us with the conclusion that the only reason there is such a media monopoly in Ireland is directly due to politicians facilitating it through inaction.
I would not claim to have final answers on the topic, particularly in a limited amount of time. Though I believe it is apparent that action is needed, and urgent that it be taken. I myself believing in capitalism and property rights, and would never advocate for the stealing of another persons property. The only acceptable method must be through a compulsory and legislated sale. And it would be my opinion that there is little value is passing a large chunk of private media from one individual to another. Furthermore, it serves very little function to simply expand the public service media by integrating the acquired media body into the state body, although it could be preferable to the current situation. It is my belief that in this evolving media landscape something new is required to truly deliver pluralism.
A suggestion upon which something genuine might be built is to allow the state to purchase the asset or assets, and then explore ways in which control might be distributed to the public. With the concept in mind that the newly acquired asset is to become a floating asset of sorts. Independent journalists may submit articles to a central hub which selects only independent articles to be published by the company. A template can be defined that ensures pluralism. For example no single independent journalist, no matter how good, can be published by the company more than 3 times in a row without other journalists then being given some airtime so to speak. Rules of this nature could be drawn up to ensure it does not simply revert to operating how other companies in its sector function. A selection panel would be necessary involving individuals committed to the objective of delivering pluralism and counter narratives, regardless of their political allegiance. I have always believed that with commitment to an ideal and some imagination almost anything can be built. With this in mind I view this as an opportunity for Ireland to innovate in a field that badly needs it, and perhaps provide the world with the democratic tool it didn’t know it needed. Any radio stations that were involved in compulsory purchase can be re-tasked to the promotion of Irelands cultural interests through promotion of Irish artists. While at the same time facilitating rigorous and regular debate on pressing topics in Irish society. Aside from believing these suggestions to be the more democratic route, and long overdue, the work of Edward Bernays makes it quite clear that our current situation is extremely dangerous, and has warranted substantial action for some time now.
I would further suggest that the continued profits of the newly acquired asset are distributed to independent journalists or other contributors, as a source of funding allowing them to continue their work. The purpose of the venture would be to support independent journalism. If a would be journalist desires a straight forward pay-check then perhaps the remaining public service content providers are the best place for them. In place of agony aunt and gossip tabloids Irish writers could be given a potential platform to display their poetry or short stories, or advertise performances etc. In short the asset could be transformed into a true public service media platform that serves the political and cultural interests of the Irish people. An entity capable of facilitating genuine pluralism by borderline refusing to publish identical narratives to those of the public service content providers. Only then can we hope to achieve pluralism in a country of cooperative viewer sharing among content providers. This is the only way to describe multiple companies that refuse to contradict each other on any major issue for fear of damaging one brand over another. Public service content providers now sing the same song regularly, not just to facilitate the engineering of consent, but to avoid any potential long-term losses by damaging one media brand over another. It is the states moral duty to extinguish this very real and proven threat to democracy, by virtually any reasonable means.
Given that political news and events are distributed on social media as often as anywhere else I believe social media must fall under the category of a public service content provider of sorts. With that being said it brings a frighteningly dystopian feel to the last word in the second quote by Bernays, “regimented”. It would appear that Covid 19 has also shone a light on our undemocratic public service content providers and public service media alike. Not only will social media ban or censor many accounts for suggesting anything that is counter to the establishments current narrative, but public service content providers have refused to entertain any genuine debate on the subject, in any dimension. It is virtually impossible to find anything but unwavering praise for every measure taken thus far. That is not a democracy, no country is that overwhelmingly in agreement. In lieu of public service content providers delivering impartial and objective debate surrounding the matter, public service media have proved equally as one sided. In fact the slander, disrespect, and belittlement received by those with any opinion contrary to the private media’s narrative is appalling. It has no place in a democratic nation of open and reasoned debate. The situation is made more worrying again as mentioned by the fact that state media did not intervene, would not represent the peoples concerns, and refused to give any serious opposition a platform to be heard.
Again bearing the quotes and work of Edward Bernays in mind, it is deeply worrying to see the Labour party among others advocating to overturn the 27th amendment. This was one of the most conclusive referendums in Irish democratic history. For public service content providers and public service media to facilitate such a movement in direct contradiction to the will of the people is genuine subversion of society and its laws. As highlighted before, the public service content providers have refused to show impartiality on this matter. And yet again, our public service media have failed to provide a platform to represent what was a clear majority of the population. This facilitation of one sided political promotion cannot go on. If there is not one representative in the Dáil or the Seanad willing to stand behind the majority decision of the people of Ireland, is it not the public service media’s obligation to facilitate the population, and afford them representation and participation in the conversation? If not, then what use is a publicly owned, publicly funded media organisation, in contrast to privately owned public service content providers? The stated purpose of public service media is to serve the needs of the public. If RTÉ cannot facilitate this function then it is my genuine opinion that it should be disbanded. I see no reason for the Irish people to pay for a regurgitation of the public service content providers narrative, which they may have deliberately decided not to purchase.
If public service media cannot be made fit for purpose then it has no future at all. Many content providers, TV channels, radio stations etc operate as private enterprises turning a profit. If Irelands public service media can do nothing but run at a cost, while simultaneously failing to provide impartiality or representation, then it is nothing but a liability on our books, with no recognisable benefit whatsoever heading into the future. Public service media can prove more valuable than the monetary cost invested, but only if it functions as an asset to democracy, and a tool of genuine benefit to the population.
With regards again to regulatory issues I believe it is high time the mainstream media in all its forms, public and private, are held to account for their seemingly purposeful demoralization of the population through narratives that are usually hugely exaggerated. For too long now the media in Ireland have barraged the population with nameless, faceless ad hominem accusations meant to divide us, and to engineer consent for political policy. Irelands population is told it is sexist, and so must consent to gender employment quotas. We are told we are racist, and so must consent to racial employment quotas, and seemingly ceaseless immigration. As mentioned repeatedly above, there is no opposition to these narratives facilitated, as it seems Irish media have launched a war on the Irish people to inform them of what terrible people they are. I do not believe this is an overstatement regarding anonymous claims that are meant to justify ceaseless activism and societal reform. If there is a genuine criminal to be highlighted then do so. But the constant accusation of sexism or racism in Ireland is an outrageous allegation to make relative to all other wrongs. If we are being objective Ireland has far bigger problems with general crime, drugs, road related deaths, and even murder, than we do with racism or sexism. This is objectively true legally, as we exist in a society based on a racially neutral legal system, and see far higher rates of most other actions considered wrong, excluding murder perhaps. Yet many media outlets that can be deemed mainstream have no interest in constantly asserting that Ireland has a problem with drugs, or that the nation has a problem with robbery. This wilfully ignorant approach to narrative is done with the aim of manufacturing consent for the policies mentioned above, which private media has no right to do. It is a company’s right to produce the content they see fit to produce. But likewise it is the states responsibility to protect democracy, whether from force, or manipulation and subversion. These undeniably coordinated narratives are proof to anyone with the knowledge of the work of Edward Bernays that public service content providers are most certainly engaged in the manufacturing of consent for policies which undermine the foundational values and principles of both Irish society and western civilization as a whole. The merit of these policies should be subject to scrutiny in open debate. This is how a peaceful society functions and advances. Not with ad hominem accusations that nobody is ever given the chance to rebuke. In truth I believe the public service content providers are well aware that the policies they promote are quite wrong, and this is the simple reason for their utter refusal to accept any opposition, and their pre-emptive anonymous slandering of anyone who dares to disagree with the agreed upon narrative.
Remaining on the topic of legislation, it is my firm belief that public service content providers need to be marshalled with regard to the sensationalism seen many times with regards to allegations. These allegations or reporting of court cases often run front page stories for days on end, ensuring almost the entire nation is aware of a rugby player accused of rape for example. Yet when the courts decision is less sensational, or less likely to sell papers, the public service content providers show no effort to publish an individuals innocence with the same effort they published the accusation. It should become law that any reporting on the potential guilt of a person is met with an equal measure of publication of their innocence. That is to say if a newspaper run a front page story for three days surrounding an incident, if the individual is then cleared of accusation, the same newspaper should run a front page story for three days clarifying the individuals innocence. I believe this would entice public service content providers to be more restrained in their willingness to sensationalize an incident for their own profit, to the detriment of the lives of others. If media outlets are made to pay for their mistakes, through their front page being occupied for days against their choice, I feel certain they will quickly become much more factual and objective overall.
Further suggestions for the future of media in Ireland could include legislation that ensures public service content providers must deliver a measure of pluralism. This could be through a mandate that requires them to provide equal airtime and promotion for any official party or candidate during an election cycle. This could be considered the responsibility of the public service media, yet they have failed to deliver entirely on this idea in the last election, with multiple genuine parties being excluded from the live debate section. If no solution within the industry is acceptable then I would suggest the facilitation of the decentralization of journalism, through the state offering grants for independent journalists, similar to how they are available for independent artists. With the stated goal of these grants being to fund journalists who provide pluralism, not merely an echo of the public service content providers. That being said it remains vital for the functioning of a genuine democracy that political candidates are afforded equal opportunity, and that political issues are subject to genuine debate and scrutiny. I believe this must be legislated in some form or another, whether through public service media or public service content providers.
With regards to the submissions second prompt question, How should public service media be financed sustainably?, the situation is highly circumstantial. As stated previously, I do not believe a public service media that fails to represent the population is deserving of any funding whatsoever. To discuss potential funding must involve a commitment to truly serving the population, as there are rarely benefits in life without responsibility. The term benefits may seem a little strong. Though in a country where such outrageous misrepresentation has been allowed to take place without reply from the public service media, more funding would certainly be a benefit it has not earned or warranted in recent years. In truth a double edged sword can be applied to this situation that can contribute to solving two issues regarding the current media situation in Ireland. The NGO industry in Ireland is funded to tune of 5.5 billion Euro every year. Many of these NGOs are nothing more than third party validators for the engineering of consent, in true Edward Bernays style. The process being that if multiple presumed to be unconnected outlets concur on an idea then it must be true. Bernays used doctors to affirm his propaganda and encourage Americans to eat a larger breakfast. Many NGOs in Ireland are acting as a seemingly independent body supporting both the policies mentioned above, and the mainstream media narrative, whatever that might be. They exist as nothing more than a deliberate echo chamber, to give the appearance of grass-roots organisations and organic civil rights movements. In truth they are the polar opposite of what they portray themselves as, and from there the future funding for public service media could easily be secured. Irelands NGO industry could be merely cut in half and it would provide billions in next years budget that was not available in last years. To offer crowd-funding from the public through a TV license as a solution is genuinely immoral when such capital is invested in what is quite obviously infrastructure to implement the methods of Bernays. Why pay to fund organisations intent of indoctrinating people through repetition when we can pay to fund democratic ones?
In relation to the first prompt question in the submission, How should government develop and support the concept and role of public service media?, there is a lot to be done, as our public service media have long since strayed from any sense of pride and identity in Ireland. If we are to begin with the submissions working definition of public service content, in that it “informs, educates and entertains the Irish public with regard to matters of Irish culture, identity, sport, language and other matters inherent to Ireland and the Irish people”, then to avoid sugar coating the reality it has performed horridly.
Only recently after Christmas, which the vast majority of Irish people celebrate, RTÉ ran an appalling “joke” in which God was portrayed as a rapist. I was not aware rape was funny. I was also completely disgusted by our national broadcaster showing such deliberate and blatant disrespect for the religious beliefs of millions of Irish people, particularly at the time of year chosen. It is rhetorical to state that RTÉ would not dream of portraying anyone else’s religion this way, it would be unthinkable. Yet someone involved in public service media thought it would be funny to insult the people who fund them. This is one of many reasons why I believe public service media must prove itself worthy of public funding, through providing representation for the Irish peoples concerns, and through combating the synchronized narratives of public service content providers where appropriate, on behalf of the ordinary citizens of Ireland.
The public service media’s future is entirely dependant on its utility to society and the population. This simply cannot be delivered when public service media Twitter pages are regularly blocking other users for simply disputing their narrative. This is in no way acceptable for public service media. They very fact that they are funded by and exist to serve the general population deprives them of the right to censor people. They are a public institution, and have no right to censor citizens from the public conversation by blocking their account from commenting. The mute function is as far as should be permitted, if an individual is truly harassing the public service media’s page. If there is genuinely nothing but unfiltered abuse then it is likely Twitter will ban the account at some point. But the publicly funded media has no right whatsoever to censor the public. It is their right to comment on events being broadcast by the state. Any other approach is totalitarian, and indicative of an organisation carrying out the engineering of consent. The mute function will ensure the operator of the social media account will not be bothered by the regular replies, and the citizen is not deprived of their right to free speech, and to take part in public discourse.
To respond to the prompt question regarding the future of public service media in Ireland, and how it might be more effective in promoting the Irish language, sport and culture, it should begin immediately by moving away from its perpetually negative stance with regards to Ireland as a whole. In recent years there has been little to discern between public service content providers and public service media. In recent years mainstream media would have us believe that Ireland is a racist, sexist and backward country. Our nation is regularly deemed to be archaic in cultural and legal standards, despite this being far from true. In the year of 2020 there were countless articles from mainstream media perpetrating the broad and nameless allegations I spoke of earlier. This can serve no purpose but to demoralize the population. Not only are they objectively false, but their unrelenting regurgitation has a grinding effect on the morale of the population. Being told over and over how terrible they are. Never relenting, because the enemy is never defeated, because the enemy is never specified. It is geared towards endless manufacturing of consent, as civil rights causes have proven to motivate the population, and so the endless accusation of inequality serves to guilt and shame the public into action.
As stated, this is where public service media should be providing investigation, representation and counter narratives to these baseless accusations. If state media has the stated purpose of serving the population then it does the people no favours by engaging in the peddling of historical, racial and collective guilt. Other groups are virtually never subjected to the same standard. It is not only immoral, it is insane that the public service media would not rebuke these narratives from private entities, who appear to be clearly biased and ignorant. I could write for days about the lack of objectivity, the subversive narratives and the outrageous indirect accusations being levelled at the Irish people by public service content providers. Though this will only reinforce the reality that Edward Bernays’ methods are currently in motion, it will not contribute to the future of Irish media.
Modern journalism has become nothing more than a network of narrative distribution, replacing objectivity with conformity. Replacing the truth with political aims. Replacing pluralism with synchronized narratives, and so on. If public service media are to serve the Irish people it must do so by promoting our identity, and pride in our nation and our history. Currently it is fair to say that public service media are engaged in the subversion and destruction of the Irish identity, again for political aims. Our establishment decided at some unknown point that bringing 1 million Africans to Ireland gradually was a good idea. With this being the backround motive both public service content providers and public service media have set about gas-lighting the Irish public with regards to their identity. The mainstream media appear to be unable or unwilling to differentiate between ethnically Irish and the nationality. In truth it is simply to facilitate a political goal, but it is done in the most subjective, disrespectful, and disingenuous way possible. To undermine a nation full of people and tell them that they aren’t Irish anymore anyway, due to years of immigration and invasion, that we should simply allow our identity to die and consider anyone here with the right paperwork to be truly Irish, and not merely citizens of our country. This is a direct insult to Irish people whose heritage forms their identity. And I imagine no such statement would ever be made by mainstream media regarding any protected group. Yet apparently the Irish population funding their existence are an acceptable punching bag.
Similar to the situation with Edward Bernays, in which an ignorance to his work leaves an individual at a disadvantage with regards to understanding mass manipulation, Yuri Bezmenov has greatly articulated how and why subversion and demoralization are made possible. For me to state that both the public service media and public service content providers are engaged in demoralization is no small accusation, and not a wild idea in the slightest. Bezmenov details exactly how to bombard a population with imaging and messages that will ingrain themselves in the subconscious of individuals and foster demoralization etc. To ignore a man who defected from the KGB when he is telling you how they subverted nations or political structures to their benefit is not a wise move in the slightest. Furthermore I believe that by simply recognizing the patterns and cooperative nature of the media the accusation moves firmly into the territory of objective observation. It is virtually impossible to deny the information available to us at this point. Our establishment has a goal. The public service content providers, the public service media and the NGOs are facilitating that goal, along with all relevant policies to make the larger goal a reality. Even hate speech legislation is being brought about to censor criticism of this immigration policy, which as stated regarding many issues, has been afforded absolutely no debate by either private or public media outlets. To deny this totalitarian infrastructure suppressing the concerns of the Irish population while marching forward with its aims is to be ignorant to the reality of the matter. The methods have been well documented and explained. The infrastructure was quite clearly monopolized with this very purpose in mind. Our politicians have avoided intervening in direct threats to our democracy, if we can still truly call it that. I am curious if anyone could attempt to articulate to me how this is all coincidental and innocent? In truth it has moved well beyond rhetorical, all that is required are the right pieces of information.
With all of this being said I believe it is imperative that the government moves to break up the largest media consolidations in Ireland, and explores ways to decentralize acquired assets into public control. It is necessary that the public service media transform itself into an asset for the Irish people and our cultural, political and historical aims. If it proves incapable of serving the Irish population then it should no longer be their monetary burden. If it can survive in the free market then more power to it. If it cannot then its true value will have been revealed. It is essential that either public service media, public service content providers or both are legislated to deliver genuine pluralism with regards to political issues, particularly those considered to be motivated by the production of consent. Furthermore it is the responsibility of the state to both facilitate open and healthy debate, while simultaneously dedicating itself to tackling false narratives and demoralization deployed by private entities. It is the governments responsibility to withdraw funding from subversive NGOs focused on toxic ideologies that undermine the foundations of modern civilization, and to use that funding for public service media. Many may deem such ideas to be political, and not truly a suggestion for a media submission. Yet NGOs produce and distribute public service content regarding society, culture and politics, and hence cannot be afforded the benefit of the doubt when the cost is dumped on the taxpayer. As stated I believe in capitalism, and if the NGOs can find willing buyers for their services or products then more power to them. Though I believe many will quickly die without their generous government funding.
To conclude there is much to be done, and I don’t envy your position. If you mean to truly do what is right, you will meet a lot of opposition. There is a massive and complex machine at work in Irish society doing its utmost to shape and control the future of the country. The smallest suggestion of attacking it will reveal its ferociously defensive nature, which will begin with playing the victim and appealing for sympathy, and end with legal threats of human rights abuse, from those practising subversion, manipulation and demoralization. I sincerely hope this submission helps in some way, and I hope you are sincere about solving very real problems.
The Human Spirit Publishing 