I want to begin by broadly welcoming the Bill and acknowledging the important work it seeks to do in bringing us into line with the European Media Freedom Act. It is true and has been said before that Ireland is still considered to have one of the freest, and arguably the finest, presses in the world. We are consistently ranking within the top ten nations, according to the annual world press freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders. That said, the ranking has on occasion, experienced a few fluctuations due to concerns regarding, for example, legal threats to journalists, especially in the context of so-called SLAPPS that are often cited in connection with defamation lawsuits filed by politicians, political parties and certain business tycoons. There is a general need for regulation, especially with the very small size of our market and the resulting tendency towards the overconcentration of ownership. It is true to say that for years, Ireland has needed a clearer and more independent system for assessing the media mergers that take place in order to protect editorial independence and ensure transparency in terms of how the State allocates advertising money. This Bill moves key decisions away from the Minister and into the hands of Coimisiún na Meán. I want to reference the comments made by other Deputies in the House with regard to moving decisions from the Minister. I am a great critic of parking health issues with the HSE, parking transport issues with the NTA or saying, "This is a matter for the Garda Commissioner." It is very hard to get direct answers to parliamentary questions or hold agencies to account in the same way. Having a Minister directly involved in the media just provides ammunition to the conspiracy theorists, who call RTÉ and its ilk the "lamestream media", and basically perpetuate the increasing distrust in the media. In my view, it is good for the monitoring and regulation of the media to be one step removed from a Minister. When it goes to Coimisiún na Meán and if it works and does what the EU framework legislation intends, it may create a more transparent and pluralistic media, freer of political interference. I do not think there is too much of that in this country, in any event, so I would say that it will be freer of allegations of political interference. Down the line, there may be parties in government that are more inclined to seek to interfere in the political process, and we have seen that with the rise of populist parties across Europe. It is a good thing to have this set aside now in case, in the future, we have different configurations that might be less democratically inclined. We live in an age of misinformation and disinformation. Troll factories located in eastern Europe, Russia, Asia and all around the world are deliberately setting out to misinform, disinform, tell outright lies and increase the levels of distrust in our media. If it helps to safeguard the independence of journalism, it is hugely important and essential to any healthy democracy, in particular our small but healthy democracy. As I said, part of the reason trust in the free press is declining is that we have one of the most concentrated media markets in Europe. That means that every merger or acquisition has a disproportionate impact on the diversity of voices available to the public. Annual reports published by bodies like the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom consistently rank Ireland, a country with very high press freedom, as very "high risk" for market plurality. The 2024 data, which is the latest available, showed a 71% risk score for market plurality, primarily due to what is called the lack of quantitative limits on media concentration in Irish law. This law is trying to remedy that, pushed on, as it is, by the EU framework law. That is why the pluralism-focused merger review required under Article 22 of the European Media Freedom Act is so important. It is not just about competition and market share but about bread-and-butter transparency. It asks the question and tries to seek out whether a merger reduces the range of viewpoints expressed, whether it over-focuses on sensationalism rather than facts, whether it gives one owner too much influence over public debate and whether editorial independence could be compromised, although not necessarily directly. We have heard this about other types of legislation but also in the context of the McCarthyite phrase that is coming into vogue again, that is, the chilling effect on reporting, or possibly in relation to social media, the chilling effect on fact-checking. We already see this on social media, where just two entities, Meta and Alphabet, are estimated to control over 80% of Irish digital advertising revenues as of 2024. We have seen how hard it is to get these and other social media companies to monitor and regulate their content. It has been hugely challenging, even at a European level. Sin sceál eile. It applies to traditional print and broadcast media as well but at least the level of regulation and penalties available there has been better applied to date, so we have not had the same types of issues. To go back to the Bill, it is great that the EU principles of press freedom are finally going into Irish legislation. However, as was mentioned in relation to tackling the IT companies and social media, if we want to keep a transparent and pluralistic media, we also have to be serious about resourcing the body that will enforce it. I agree with colleagues who are worried about the Minister passing it on to Coimisiún na Meán. Coimisiún na Meán has already been given major responsibilities for online safety, broadcasting standards and other types of media regulation. We are now adding complex merger assessments, new notification powers and the oversight of state advertising into the mix. We have to ensure that these new roles have adequate staff and expertise. It is not just about passing legislation but it is about making sure that when this is enacted, Coimisiún na Meán is fully resourced. Regarding the area of state advertising, there are a few welcome things. Article 25 of the European Media Freedom Act, which this Bill facilitates, requires that public funds for state advertising and service contracts are awarded based on transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria. This puts pressure on public and local authorities to consider certain factors when choosing where to place state advertising. Decisions must be based on the media outlet's ability to reach a specific target audience and also the cost effectiveness of advertising spend, as well as its geographical spread, so it is done across different regions, with local versus national. There are also statutory requirements to adhere to legal obligations, such as requirements for public notices or advertising as Gaeilge freisin. To ensure non-discrimination, certain procedures are required. This has to be publicly available in advance. The criteria and procedures for awarding funds have to be published electronically before the award process begins. It requires the use of open and proportionate procedures for awarding contracts. All advertising campaigns must be based on a strategic brief that identifies clear communication goals and the target audience. Key performance indicators must be set for each campaign. It is all bells and whistles, or motherhood and apple pie, as long as we have an agency that is resourced to monitor that all of this is happening, and that the annual reports detail the legal names of providers and business groups, as well as the total amounts spent in each section. That is good stuff. However, while praising the Bill and what it is trying to do, we need to find a balance between regulation and putting costs on certain businesses - by that, I mean the smaller ones. We need a system that allows the public, the Oireachtas and the media to see exactly how decisions are made but at the same time, we need to ensure that the smaller local outlets are not unintentionally disadvantaged because of regulation. A pluralist media is not just about preventing dominance at the top; it is also about ensuring that community voices, regional newspapers and independent digital outlets can survive and thrive. These have been challenged over the years. Many of the local newspapers, for example, are now in the hands of larger companies. I want to make a point from that angle. I know there is a European fund for reporting. We have seen in many local newspapers that content behind a paywall is made freely available by dint of this funding. This allows journalists to report on a wider range of relevant stories. I want to put on record that my background is in journalism. I went to what used to be called the College of Commerce in Rathmines, which is now TU Dublin. I learned shorthand, which I have forgotten, learned how to type on a clunky typewriter, and learned all about defamation law, the principles of good journalism and how there are different types of journalism. For example, there are colour writers like the inimitable Miriam Lord, who was there when I was training, and there is news reporting and opinion pieces, and we learned the difference between the types. These days, it has become more blurred. One thing I have noticed is the lack of ability of media outlets to raise money. I am talking about the over-reliance on advertising and the lack of purchasing of the old-style newspapers, which are in decline. It is difficult to try to fund proper journalism and to make it a career, particularly as journalists' pay is massively under threat and has been declining over the years. It is no longer a career that I would encourage someone to go into unless they feel it is a vocation and they are at the top of their game. What I, as a politician as opposed to a journalist, have noticed is that in the old days, journalists would go to council meetings and would report on what happened. They would talk to people at the meetings and ask them questions. What I have noticed more and more is that stories tend to be printed by those who can send in ready-made press statements as opposed to by the journalists who have the tools to go out and find the stories and get behind them. That is something we have to watch out for as we go because journalism is under threat in light of the nature of the modern media age whereby we have social media influencers who display a lot less responsibility. I saw this recently in relation to my constituency where someone published misinformation online that was shared across Facebook and Instagram. That is the sort of stuff that spreads long before you are able to get the real story, and that can sometimes cause a lot of anguish. I know there is regulation of social media influencers by other means, but we need to get a little tougher in terms of the powers relating to that side of things. While it does not relate to this Bill, I want to refer to the social media companies in terms of what they allow to be published and how they regulate it. These companies have disinvested in proper moderation and fact-checking. They should not be allowed to get away with that. We need to go beyond what is in this Bill, because a vibrant diverse media is not a one-off. It is not just about this Bill; it is an ongoing responsibility for any democracy, especially when democracies are under threat across the world. We will need regular reviews and proper reporting systems and obviously the funding. I welcome this Bill's alignment with European standards and its commitment to independent oversight, but I hope Coimisiún na Meán will have the resources it needs in order that we can facilitate a diverse, pluralistic and fair-minded media going forward. I say that because we are massively under threat. We need a media we can trust. We need to be able to say that RTÉ has a particular neutral opinion and will not publish anything until it has checked all the facts because it is afraid of being sued. Gript media might be seen as being a little to the right, but it has a valid voice. We then have other media that are perceived to be on the social side. That is all very welcome. We need to make sure that it is maintained.

Sentiment score: 0.19