PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY - Inter-Parliamentary Union

44 I PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Facilitating journalists and the media
in reporting the work of parliament
Parliaments depend upon journalists, editors and media presenters for
informing the public about their work. Yet there is much mutual distrust
between them. Journalists are often frustrated by restrictions on access to
proceedings, or by contempt and defamation laws which may unnecessarily
constrain what they can publicly report. Parliamentarians on their side hold the
media partly responsible for the low esteem in which they are collectively
held, because of a one-sided portrayal of their work. ‘The media tend to focus
more on proceedings which are adversarial and on matters such as travel and
expenses without placing them in the wider context of a parliament that is
constructive and systematic’ is a typical comment from the Irish parliament.
Pictures of empty benches convey the impression that members are ‘moonlighting’
when they may well be properly engaged in other parliamentary
business, whether in committees or in their constituencies.
Inevitably there will be some tension between parliamentarians and the
media, given the different purposes and cultures of the two professions.
Yet they both need each other, and have everything to gain from seeking to
collaborate in the ways in which parliament is presented to the public. The
public, for their part, have an interest in maximum openness if they are to be
effectively informed about the activities of their elected representatives.
Issues of access
Much of the work of parliament is now carried on in committees, and many
parliaments are now opening them up to the public and media personnel.
Reservations made by parliamentarians to doing so centre on the fear that
proceedings may become more partisan if they are public, that witnesses may
be less forthright in their evidence, or that members may exploit the occasion
for ‘grandstanding’. However, if the media are to give a more rounded picture
of the work of members, then opening up committee proceedings where much
of the work is carried on is a logical step, and one which is becoming more
general, subject to obvious limitations on grounds of personal or national
security.
Among recent examples of improved transparency, the Dutch Parliament
has experimented with opening up the procedural meetings of certain committees
to the public, so that observers can see how they set their agendas and
arrange public hearings. The House of Representatives of the Republic of