The Gazette 1946-49

323 / 822

GAZETTE MAY 1988
Self-assessment of
C.A.T. 89
Practice Notes 95
Solicitors Benevolent
Association 100
International Bar
Association News 100
The Challenge of
Change • 101
People & Places . 102
Younger Members News 111
A Case for Medical
Photography 112
Professional Information 117
Executive Editor:
Mary Gaynor
Committee:
Geraldine Clarke, Chairman
Seamus Brennan
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Michael Carrigan
Jim Hickey
Nathaniel Lacy
Frank Lanigan
Charles R. M. Meredith
Desmond Moran
Daire Murphy
John Schutte
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising:
Liam 0 hOisin. Telephone: 305236
307860
Printing:
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford.
The views expressed in this publication,
save where otherwise indicated, are the
views of the contributors and not
necessarily the views of the Council of
the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in
this publication does not necessarily
indicate approval by the Society for the
product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
Tel.: 710711. Telex: 31219. Fax: 710704.
A J | ^ p T T p INCORPORATED
I / 1 / L I I L LAW SOCIETY
i i M / r I I r o f m
l M B ^ M I I Vol.82 No.4May 1!
Viewpoint
Lawyers and journalists always
seem to end up close together in
those polls which place various
professions and callings in the order
of public esteem — usually pretty
near the bottom of the list. Each
group gains unpopularity at least
partly from carrying out functions
in unpopular ways — defending the
"guilty", protecting their sources of
information — pursuing unpopular,
if proper, cases and causes.
What is su r p r i s i ng and
disappointing is the continuing
element of suspicion which exists
between lawyers and journalists.
Neither group seems to take
sufficient trouble to understand the
positions, professional duties and
obligations of the other. How many
lawyers know of the existence of
the NUJ Code of Conduct, let alone
what it provides? How many
journalists have briefed themselves
on the judicial and professional
controls which limit the activities of
lawyers? Each group lives in a
world of continuing change, the
rate of which appears to accelerate
daily. Today's media differs radically
from that of 20 years ago. Today
lawyers practise in a different world
too. Jou r na l i s ts seem to
concentrate on yesterday's world
wh en t hey look at l awye r s'
activities. To take but one example,
there seems to be little appreciation
of the fact that lawyers have taken
more avidly to modern technology
than the printed media.
The Law Society, conscious that
self-regulation of a profession must
be seen to be effective, has sought
a change in legislation to permit the
monitoring of the process by
representatives of the public, while
at the same time seeking further
powers to discipline its members.
It is mildly ironic to find the
media, which is trenchantly crit-
ical of self-regulation in other
p r o f ess i ons and t r ades, less
enthusiastic about any other form
of control of its standards and
conduc t s. The l imi t ed and
necessary control by our Courts of
contempt and defamation are
regarded as oppressive. The fact
that there are no adequate civil
remedies open to those whose
privacy has been unnecessarily in-
vaded or whose deceased relatives
have been defamed is overlooked.
Letters to the Editor or the Right of
Reply offered by one of our news-
papers are not adequate solutions.
The media in these islands may
be ignoring a ground swell of
criticism of their methods of
operation which their counterparts
in other countries have taken steps
to de-fuse. In the USA where the
laws of libel provide greater pro-
tection to the media than here,
over 30 major US newspapers have
appointed internal ombudsmen to
review their ac t i v i t i es. The
Washington Post's official is both
the front line mediator with outside
complainants and its internal
conscience, monitoring whether it
is effectively performing its duty of
reporting events. "Fact Checkers"
are now widely used in the US and
are to be introduced to BBC Tele-
vision t h is year. How many
defamation actions would never
have been started if the facts had
been checked first.
In his recent Fleming Lecture,
John Birt, the Deputy Director
General of the BBC warned of this
ground swell and of the danger that
it wou ld lead to con t r ol by
legislation which could well limit
the genuine function of the press.
In calling for an enhanced Press
Council with real powers and a
Council of the Media to harmonize
the approach to editorial policy and
ethics as well as media law and
journalistic training, he sounded a
tocsin which deserves to be heard
by those in positions of authority in
the Irish media.
If the media are to remedy these
perceived deficiencies they can
reasonably seek the quid pro quo of
a Freedom of Information Act,
coupled with more sensible Official
Secrets Legislation. Freedom of
Information Acts exist in the USA,
87