Media Monopolies Injure Society

Media monopolies and how they injure society has always been and will continue to be a topical issue.  This is hardly surprising in today’s climate as companies have a basic interest in increasing their profits.  However it does not take long for this interest to turn into greed and encourage media companies to seek a monopoly.  There are many arguments that can be made to support the view of how media monopolies injure society, some of which are covered in this essay. The following topics will be discussed in this essay 1.Danger of media monopolies with too much power, 2. Nothing will stand in the way of a Media Company looking for a monopoly, 3.What can be done to stop media monopolies from injuring society, 4.Media monopolies injure democracy, 5.Shaping views of future leaders.  Evaluation of the main points of this essay show that while some efforts have been made to stop media monopolies from injuring society, they still carry on regardless.

Large media companies are most dangerous when given too much power for example individuals like Rupert Murdoch who will exploit it to their own advantage. Newscorps involvement in the phone hacking scandal not only injured society, it also had a devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people.  The case has become so serious that the F.B.I has launched an investigation into Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.  Many believe the recent phone tapping scandal could be Murdoch’s downfall.  Rupert Murdoch will continue to dominate with his ownership of Television networks, Film Companies and numerous international newspapers.  Large companies like Newscorp will be most dangerous when given too much power. 

When a media company wants a monopoly nothing will stand in their way. Denis O’ Brien and how he influenced Michael Lowry to give Esat Digifone the licence to operate in Ireland is a perfect example of this point.  A subsequent tribunal of inquiry was set up to investigate the matter but no individual has yet been prosecuted.  The awarding of the licence not only injured society because Denis O’ Brien gained a Monopoly but also lacked transparency.  Mr O’Brien’s payments to Michael Lowry also highlighted the warm relationship that once existed between Media Companies and members of the political establishment.  Denis O’ Brien injured society further when he netted millions of euro from the sale of Esat Digifone to British Telecom.  Denis O’ Brien’s bid to buy shares in I.N.M is another example of how a media company will let nothing stand in their way of achieving a monopoly.  It is this kind of practice that injures society.  

Many commentators have argued that media monopolies can not be stopped. What if anything can be done?.  Every country in the European Union is obliged to follow the competition laws set down by the European Parliament.  If any company is found in breach of the competition laws, the commission has the power to impose fines of up to 10% of turnover.  This clearly shows that the authorities will no longer stand aside and allow media monopolies to injure society.   The E.U has to reform competition laws to prevent companies from finding loopholes and engaging in anti-competitive practices. Legislation that was introduced in May 2004 gave power to individual competition authorities to enforce E.U competition law.  This will not only help in the fight against media monolpies in Ireland but throughout the European Union.  The most important aspect to come out of the 2004 reforms of E.U competition law was that the respective competition authorities are now in a position to co-operate when conducting an investigation.  This clearly shows that something is being done to stop media monopolies from injuring society.  

The fight against media monopolies is not only happening in Europe, Ireland is also taking the matter very seriously.  The competition authority is the body that ensures all aspects of competition law are enforced in Ireland. The government has also taken action, with the publication of the competition amendment act 2011.  The most important aspect of this legislation is if a member of the public is of the view that they have been affected by anti-competitive practices it will now be easier to prove an action against a particular group or company. The only way we can prevent society from being injured by media monoplies is if the authorities and the people join together.  

Media monopolies not only injure society they also injure democracy.  It is a well-known fact that democracy is one of the main pillars of society and any threat to democracy should be seen as a direct threat to society.  In the 21^st century media monopolies should be viewed as the biggest threat to democracy.  It is time that politicians started doing the job people elected them to do, because if democracy is injured beyond repair society will be too weak to fight back.  The Australian Prime minster Julia Gillard  announced in July of last year , that an inquiry will be set up to investigate NewsCorps practices in Australia.  If large media monoplies like NewsCorp are to pay for the injures they inflicted on society, other parliaments should take note.  Democracy is already in a volatile position and we should not allow media monopolies to injure it further.  

Media monopolies not only shape our political attitudes but also the political attitudes of our future leaders.  It is a well-documented fact that media monopolies injure society, but it is a far less documented fact that the same people are shaping the attitudes of our future leaders.  Media monopolies are in a position to do this because they provide information that voters base their decisions on.  This information will not only injure society today, but also injure society in years to come.  If we don’t stop media monolpies from doing this it will be the powerful media executives running society and not the politicians whom we elect.  Media monolpies will continue to get away with this crime against society because not enough attention is being paid to how news is being framed. It should also be highlighted that relatively nothing is being written on the political consequences of media frames and how it will influence tomorrow’s leaders.  We must do more as a society to protect tomorrow’s leaders.  

Without the media the world would be a dull and uneducated place but we could easily survive without domineering media monopolies injuring society often, beyond repair. That is why we must make greater efforts to prevent media monopolies from carrying on regardless, because if we suffer future generations will also suffer.

Seanad Éireann Contribution to Irish Politics

The Seanads contribution to Irish politics has been for many years a topical issue.  However the current government’s plan to abolish the upper house of the Oireachtas has caused considerable debate not only among the electorate but also the political establishment.  There are many arguments that can be made to support the view that the Seanad has contributed to Irish politics, some of which are covered in this blog.  The following topics are covered in the blog

·        Some of Irelands greatest politicians sat in the Seanad,

·        Senators nominated to cabinet,

·        The Seanads involvement in establishing the Foreign Affairs committee,

·        Seanad not being utilized,

·        Seanad a target for populist politicians,

·        Senators have started great campaigns,

·        Reform of the Seanad.

 Evaluation of the main points of this essay not only shows the Seanads contribution to Irish politics but also how the abolishment of Seanad Éireann would be a serious mistake.

Some of Irelands greatest politicians have previously sat in Seanad Éireann.  Since the Seanads re-establishment under the 1937 constitution of Ireland (Know your parliament a guide to the houses of the Oireachtas) it has held centre stage to some of Ireland’s best and most colourful politicians.  During Mary Robinson’s time in the Seanad she campaigned for women’s rights and making contraception legally available (Mary Robinson, first female president of Ireland, 2010). Mary Robinson would not have been in a positions to highlight these important issues if she sat in the Daíl.  I believe this clearly shows that the Seanad has in fact contributed to Irish politics.  It could also be argued that without the Seanad Mary Robinson might not have gone on to become President or U.N Highcommisioner for human rights.  Michael D. Higgins was first nominated to the Seanad in 1973 by then Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave.  During his time in the Seanad he opposed President Reagans visit to Ireland and was hugely critical of the Fine Gael government in the 1980s describing them as an “enormous conservative force”. (One of our finest citizens become first citizen, with a vision dedicated to renewing the republic, 2011). This shows clearly that past members of the Seanad have played no small part in its contribution to Irish politics. 

It is a little known fact that under article 28 section seven of the constitution of Ireland a maximum of two members can be nominated to cabinet. (Constitution of Ireland, 2011).Seanads contribution to Irish politics could have been greater if previous governments took advantage of this privilege.  Prof Jim Dooge was the last Senator appointed to an Irish cabinet.  Despite the fact that he was not nominated to Garret Fitzgerald’s second Cabinet (1982-1987) he had a major role to play in a report on improving E.E.C cooperation in 1984. (Tributes pour in for former minister and top academic, 2010).  Prof Dooge would not have been in a position to do this if he was elected to the Daíl due to the constraints of constituency work. I believe this proves the Seanads contribution to Irish politics because it gave Jim Dooge a political platform.  I believe the current government should give the Seanad an opportunity to contribute to Irish politics, by nominating two Senators to cabinet. 

The joint committee on Foreign Affairs has not only contributed too politics but also contributed in promoting Irelands foreign policy priorities. (Role of joint Committee on Foreign Affairs). The Foreign Affairs committee would not be in a position to do this without the help of the Seanad.  The current President of Ireland and former Labour Senator Michael D. Higgins lobbied successfully for the establishment of an Oireachtas Foreign Affairs committee (One of our finest citizens become first citizen, with a vision dedicated to renewing the republic, 2011).  Today the committee plays a critical role in the organisation of the Irish Economic Forum which brings together successful Irish people from home and abroad. (Role of joint Committee on Foreign Affairs). It is worth highlighting that without the Seanad and the Foreign Affairs committee, Ireland would not have been in a position to attract some of the Business World’s most successful people.  I firmly believe this highlights the Seanads contribution to Irish politics. 

The Seanads contribution to Irish politics has been immense, but the fact still remains that it is not being used to its full potential.  In March 2002 the Oireachtas set up an all-party committee for the Constitution.  The committee recommended that the method that elects Senators should be changed with 48 elected from lists; it also raised the possibility of giving the Seanad additional powers. (Coakely & Gallagher, 2010).  I believe the political establishment would not be in such a volatile position if the 2002 reforms were acted upon.  It is worth asking the question how many times in recent years have the Seanad rejected a government bill?  The last time the Seanad rejected a government bill was in July 1964. (Coakely & Gallagher, 2010)  The reason for this being that under article 18 section one of the Constitution of Ireland “11 members shall be nominated”. (Constitution of Ireland, 2011).  This ensures governments always have a majority in the Seanad.  The Seanads contribution to Irish politics could be greater if was not for successive governments failing to utilize it to its full potential.

In recent years the Seanad has become the target for populist party policy.  A perfect example of this is the current governments plan to abolish the Seanad in the constitutional convention to be held this year.  I believe the question the electorate of Ireland should be asking the government is “why are you examining abolishment before reform examining reform”.  Thankfully the youth wing of main opposition party in Ireland has stood up to this populist political belief.  Ógra Fianna Fáil firmly believes that there is a place in Ireland for a reformed and relevant Seanad. (Ógra Fianna Fáil 2011).  I fully agree with this view, because it is my belief that the only way the Seanad can make a contribution to Irish Politics is by being relevant.  I sincerely hope the uphill battle facing those populist politicians  not only to abolish the Seanad but to remove it from the constitution altogether , will give both the electorate and the media something to talk about in the coming weeks and months. 

The Seanad has not only contributed to Irish politics in the area of legislation but also in giving Senators a platform to campaign for important issues.  Shane Ross has led many high profile campaigns including a shareholders revolt at Éircom.  The Seanad gave Shane Ross a platform to fight on behalf of those thousands of ordinary people who lost money in Éircom.  He not only led campaigns against the M50 toll bridge but he also called for the clean-up of the banks long before anyone else. (About Shane, 2012).  Senator Mark Daly has recently secured €200,000 in lottery funding for the cystic fibrosis unit in University Hospital Cork. (200,000 of lottery funding for cystic fibrosis).  This not only underlines the Seanads contribution to politics but also to Irish life.  Labour Senator Ivana Bacik has begun lobbying for an examination of blasphemy laws in Ireland as a result of an Indonesian Civil Servant who is facing charges of Blasphemy for writing on Facebook “god doesn’t exist”. (Two Senators support Alexander Aon in Indonesian blasphemy case, 2012). Independent Senator David Norris has led many campaigns in the past most notably his victorious European court case in 1988.  Today David Norris leads a campaign for a push towards civil marriage for gay people. (David Norris, 2011)  This clearly shows that politicians do a lot more than apply for medical cards and because of this you cannot argue against the fact that the Seanad has made a contribution to Irish politics. 

I strongly and firmly believe that the Seanads contribution to Irish politics could be greater if reformed.  In the Constitution of Ireland under article 18 section four it allows six Senators to be elected from colleges, three from the national colleges and a further three Senators from Trinity College Dublin. (Constitution of Ireland, 2011).  I believe every graduate of third level institutions should be entitled to a vote in the next Seanad election.  I also believe that when the four technological universities are formed they should be given a panel where its graduates can elect Senators to represent them in Seanad Éireann.  Despite the fact that the government parties Fine Gael and Labour have pledged to abolish the Seanad, Órga Fianna Faíl have come up with a proposal that if implanted could radically reform the Seanad.  They propose that Senators would be elected from National panels with elections staggered so that there was a turnover of third of seats every two years.(Ógra Fianna Faíl 2011).  Seanad Éireann is currently at a cross roads and the road that should be taken is the road of reform and not the road of abolishment.

Should junk food should be banned from primary and secondary schools ?

This speech was delivered as part of the Macra Na Feirme regional debating heat held on the 17th of January in Carrigtwohill, Community Centre County Cork. Our motion was "that junk food should be banned from primary and secondary schools"

Chairman, members of the adjudicating panel, members of the proposition, ladies and gentlemen of the audience. I stand here this evening with some of my colleagues from Tullow Macra Na Feirme to defend the right of our young people to be allowed junk food in moderation in our country primary and secondary schools. As part of my contribution to the arguments being put forward by this side of the house, I discuss and how my own personal experiences with junk food had lead me to express the views  that I am articulating this evening. My colleague Susan Willis will be articulating the view point how the banning of junk food in society can lead us to developing a negative attitude towards it. Hannah Driver will be strenuously arguing the point we should concentrate on educating our school going population on the value of a balanced diet instead of banning junk food. While Ricky Oliver will talk about the economic draw back if such a ban was to take place. He will also provide us with an example that will illustrate his point.

When I started secondary school in September 2006 I was overwhelmed by the variety of junk that I could access. To the effect that I totally ignored the need for healthy food in a balanced diet. Mr/Madame Chairperson, I think it is important to make the point if junk food was allowed in moderation in my primary school. I would have learned the through value of a balanced diet and not have been so overwhelmed when I first entered secondary school. I have since asked myself would an outright ban on junk food in my secondary or indeed any other school in the country would have prevented me from consuming junk food. The answer to that question is absolutely not because the only thing that would have happened in that instance is we would have gone down the town and purchased the food elsewhere.

In Social Psychology terms an attitude is defined as “an inclination to perceive interpret and evaluate people events and issues in a certain manner”. The question I wish to put to the members of the proposition how can a young person perceive interpret and evaluate junk food if it is strictly forbidden and not allowed in moderation in our schools.

I know from studying Social Psychology that I was not born with the attitude I have towards junk food instead I learned it from society in general. I ask you to reflect I learned this attitude from society, am I the only person that ever had this problem. I believe the question must be asked in fact the question should be asked how can we teach future generations the value of the food pyramid if the top of is strictly forbidden?

In conclusion, I hope the arguments that I have put forward will encourage all those present here this evening to support our call to prevent junk food from being banned in our secondary schools and instead allowing it to be consumed in moderation

Chairman, members of adjudicating, panel, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I thank you