There are elements of this Bill that deserve recognition and support. At its core, it seeks to strengthen something that is fundamental to any healthy democracy, namely plurality in our media. In an era when media ownership is increasingly concentrated and when global platforms hold unprecedented influence over what people see, read and hear, it is right that we take steps to ensure diversity of voices and opinions and the protection of editorial independence. The intention behind this legislation to prevent undue concentration of media power and promote transparency is reasonable. The requirement for greater transparency in State advertising is also welcome. The public has a right to know how and where public money is being spent, particularly in the media space. Equally, the move to establish a clear picture of media ownership is a step towards openness that should be broadly supported. While we can acknowledge the positives, we cannot ignore the broader implications of what is being proposed. This Bill represents a significant transfer of power from an elected Minister accountable to this House and to the people, to one unelected regulatory body in the form of Coimisiún na Meán. Independence in regulation has its place, but independence must never come at the expense of accountability. We are being asked to place considerable authority over media mergers, definitions of editorial independence and the broader shaping of our media landscape in the hands of a body that is not directly answerable to the electorate. That in itself gives rise to legitimate questions, but people's concerns are sharpened further when we look beyond our shores. In recent weeks, a report from the United States Congress has raised serious allegations regarding the role of European regulators, including engagement involving Coimisiún na Meán, in the period leading up to elections across Europe, including here in Ireland. According to that report, there was co-operation between regulators, major technology platforms and what has been described as partisan or ideologically aligned fact-checking organisations. The claim is that this co-ordination influenced how content was moderated, particularly during sensitive electoral periods. These are serious claims. They may be contested, and they should be examined carefully and objectively, but they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental question, namely who decides what information the public is allowed to see? We are told that this Bill is about tackling misinformation but, increasingly, we see examples across Europe where perfectly legitimate political opinions on migration, energy policy and social issues have been labelled as harmful or unacceptable. When statements that reflect mainstream viewpoints are treated as violations, we are no longer dealing with a neutral regulation; we are entering the territory of subjective judgement and, potentially, ideological filtering. That is where the danger lays. Democracy depends not on unanimity, but on open disagreement. It depends on the ability of citizens to hear competing arguments, to weigh them and to make up their own minds. If decisions about what constitutes acceptable disclosures are shifted away from the public sphere and into the hands of the regulator, however well-intentioned, we risk undermining that very foundation. This is not an argument against regulation, nor is it an argument against this Bill in its entirety. It is, however, a call for caution. If we are to proceed, we must ensure that there are clear limits on the powers being transferred, that there is robust oversight and transparency in how those powers are exercised and ,above all, that the principles of free expression and democratic accountability are protected at every stage. Once powers of this nature are handed over, they are not easily reclaimed. We must get the balance right between protection of our media landscape and preserving the freedoms that underpin it. If we fail to do so, we may well solve one problem, only to create a far worse one. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to what we have in my constituency. I refer to our local radio station, C103 FM, in west Cork, and 96 FM and Red FM for that matter too, which have given a very fair account of themselves down through the years. You would hear politicians giving arguments from all sides on those stations. They deserve to be commended on their focus on delivering a clear message to people. Members of the public want to hear the honest facts. It does not matter what side the facts come from, as long as they are delivered. Sometimes, the waters in that regard become muddied when it comes to the bigger stations. We often find that we are victims when it comes to Virgin Media and RTÉ. We feel that sometimes we are not represented in a fair manner. I do not know when Virgin Media last made any kind of contact with us. We have a voice. The electorate gave Independent Ireland a very strong mandate. It is fine to try to ignore that if you want to, but there is a reason for it being ignored. That has to be brought to task here. No media outlet at any level has a right to rule somebody in or out or to favour certain people. I wish to praise the Southern Star and reporters like Kieran O'Mahony, who try to be as fair as possible. They are not favourable at times. At times they are angered and they say the wrong things, but that is quite understandable. At least they are trying their best to deliver an honest and free media that cannot ever be tied up, as such, when it comes to delivering what is the honest story.

Sentiment score: 0.15