Risk to media integrity is no laughing matter

Any untoward breach of a citizen’s data is worrying but if the targets are journalists then it’s not just personal rights but a basic cog of democracy at stake, says Michael Clifford.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of American democracy, once said the following:

“If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”.

His observation places in context the role of the media. (Newspapers were the only media form in Jefferson’s time).

Without a functioning media, power goes unchallenged.

Human nature dictates that corruption follows. In countries where the media is under a tight rein today — Russia is the obvious example — corruption flourishes.

The media is imperfect. Commerce and politics can coarsen its primary function. But in developed democracies, the media plays a vital role in speaking to power, rooting out bad practice and exposing wrongdoing.

These observations should be to the fore in considering the current controversy over an alleged data breach in INM, the largest newspaper publisher in the State.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) is scheduled to apply for inspectors to be appointed to investigate INM on April 16. This is an unprecedented move.

It suggests that the ODCE believes there are matters of the most serious nature to be investigated, including whether any crimes have been committed.

An affidavit sworn by the ODCE has leaked into the media over the last few days. The principal allegation is that a huge chunk of data in INM was removed from the company in 2014, brought offshore and “Interrogated”.

This involves trawling the data — particularly emails — for specific information. Data related to 19 named individuals was allegedly interrogated.

Three journalists have been named among the 19. These are the deputy editor of the Sunday Independent and TV presenter Brendan O’Connor, investigate reporter Maeve Sheehan, and Sam Smyth, a veteran investigative reporter no longer employed by INM.

The latter two, in particular, have distinguished records in holding power to account.

Central to their work would have been confidential contact with individuals who want something exposed, a route that is the staple of investigative journalism.

The possibility that such information could find its way to a third party would have a chilling effect on the practice of journalism, and by extension, democracy.

Central to the allegation is the former chairman of INM, Lesley Buckley. He has reportedly told the ODCE that the removal of data was connected with a cost-cutting project.

Mr Buckley resigned earlier this year. The ODCE affidavit is alleging that six separate companies may have had access to the displaced data.

The head of the National Union of Journalists, Seamus Dooley, has expressed himself “gravely concerned” about the reports emerging. “This stinks to high heaven,” he told RTÉ. “This is our Leveson moment.”

Leveson was the tribunal that investigated the hacking of phones by some journalists in the UK. The comparison is valid in terms of its impact on the media and by extension society. However, what appears to arise here is media control rather than journalistic practice.

Hovering over the whole affair is billionaire Denis O’Brien, who has a controlling interest in INM. There is nothing to connect Mr O’Brien personally to the alleged data breach, but the affidavit reportedly states a company owned by him paid the fee of the security outfit which removed the data. Mr O’Brien has not disputed that claim.

Mr O’Brien took a controlling interest in INM in 2012. In the years immediately prior to that, he was involved in a protracted takeover battle with the O’Reilly family, which had controlled the group since the early 1970s.

Also in 2012, the Moriarty Tribunal reported that former minister for communications Michael Lowry had interfered with the awarding of the lucrative second mobile phone licence in 1995.

Mr O’Brien’s company Esat Telecom won the licence. The tribunal found that a money trail leading on a circuitous route from Mr O’Brien to Mr Lowry was established.

Both men have vehemently disputed the findings. Among the 19 individuals whose names were trawled in the INM alleged data breach are two barristers who acted for Moriarty.

Another on the list, Sam Smyth, was a prominent figure in reporting the tribunal’s work for the Irish Independent. In 2010, during the takeover battle, Mr O’Brien’s close associate Mr Buckley wrote to the company requesting that Mr Smyth be removed from reporting the inquiry.

The request was refused. Mr Smyth subsequently left the newspaper group. Prior to assuming control of INM, Mr O’Brien frequently expressed outrage at what he saw as attacks on him through the pages of the Sunday Independent in particular.

There was some evidence to support his claim. For instance, on April 1, 2012, there were 15 articles in the Sunday Independent about him and his businesses, nearly all having a go at him.

Once Mr Buckley was installed as chairman of INM, there was an attempt to tighten up editorial control. An

editor-in-chief was appointed over all the group’s titles. A proposal to introduce an “editorial charter” which would effectively filter the content of the papers was introduced, but following an outcry, this was shelved.

Mr O’Brien is fiercely protective of his reputation. He has taken a number of libel actions in recent years, which is his right, but is unusual for somebody in control of the State’s largest media group.

Currently, he is involved in a protracted High Court action against Red Flag, a PR company run by former INM executives.

Central to the action is a USB key which Mr O’Brien says was anonymously provided to him and which contained information detailing an alleged attack on his character and business.

None of that has anything to do with the alleged data breach, but the centrality of Mr O’Brien’s close associate, Mr Buckley, is a cause for concern.

Should the ODCE’s suspicions be found to have any substance, questions will immediately arise for Mr O’Brien.

Media ownership has been under the spotlight in recent days due to the role of Facebook in the 2016 US elections. The head of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is arguably the most powerful media owner in history. The power he wields goes largely unaccounted for in the wild west of cyberspace.

Back at the Independent group, there has, in the past, been questions over possible editorial interference by its owner.

In the 1997 general election, the daily, evening and Sunday titles all departed from long-standing tradition and endorsed a party, Fianna Fáil, which was in opposition.

At the time, Tony O’Reilly, who controlled the group, was in dispute with the outgoing Fine Gael-Labour coalition over business interests. The editors of the day denied any interference.

Ahead of the 2007 election, Mr O’Reilly met with then taoiseach Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen. In the months prior to the meeting, the Sunday Independent had been highly critical of Ahern’s government. Following the meeting, the tone of coverage changed considerably.

Mr O’Reilly and the editor of the paper denied any interference.

The questions raised in those instances are relatively primitive compared to what is currently at issue.

Any untoward breach of a citizen’s data in today’s world would be a cause for serious concern. If the targets are journalists, then it is not just personal rights but a basic cog of democracy that is at issue.