PRINT and electronic media have recently had to confront a journalistic dilemma which few editors ever envisaged. Should they give coverage to statements by people who announce that they are suspects in ongoing criminal investigations and who simultaneously protest their innocence?

Such statements are highly unusual (which gives them a substantial news interest); are not declamatory (so can be published with impunity); and are not in contempt of court (because nobody has been charged).

The dilemma arises because they could be interpreted in subsequent court proceedings as precluding the possibility of a fair trial for any accused person who was the author of such a published statement.

Yesterday the media split three ways on this issue. Four daily newspapers - the Irish Independent, the Examiner, the Mirror and the Star - published statements of this kind, identifying the source. The Irish Times published a news report that such statements had been made without identifying any sources involved. RTE radio decided n to broadcast an interview with a named source.

The problem for the media is that they tend to adhere to certain conventions which can allow them to be manipulated by others.

It's like a game in which only one side is playing by the rules. For example, the late and unlamented Senator Joe McCarthy considerably advanced his career by exploiting this convention, on the basis of which journalists felt obliged to publish even the most outlandish of his accusations about lists of communists in the state department, and elsewhere, because his statements were "news", even though in many cases they knew or believed these statements to be false.

But it is now more than 40 years since McCarthy flourished, and it is not too much to hope that the media might have grown up a bit in the meantime.

For example, what's wrong with the old-fashioned notion of checking the facts of a story, instead of - or at the very least as well as - publishing uncorroborated statements by individuals?

What is the "story" here, anyway? Is it that "X" has made a particular statement? If "X" is actively seeking publicity for his statement, this is basically part of a personal public relations campaign.

It should be treated by media like any other public relations campaign, rather than as a "scoop" unearthed by journalists battling against fierce odds.

Sometimes public relations campaigns are newsworthy, sometimes not. Assuming for the purposes of argument that this particular campaign is newsworthy - and it is difficult to argue that it is not - the next question to ask is: is the statement true or not, and what evidence is there for its truth?

The more dramatic or unexpected the statement, the greater the need to test its truth or otherwise as you slip its collar and let it run free. The obvious corollary of this is that individuals who make such statements should reasonably be expected to provide evidence for them, if their statements are to be taken seriously.

IF THEY cannot provide any evidence for such dramatic statements, should we take them seriously? Whether we take them seriously or not, should we publish them? And if we publish them, should we draw attention to the presence or absence of any evidence?

Media rightly insist in many cases on satisfying themselves about the accuracy of publishing statements which may give rise to legal action, even though this evidence in many cases falls short of material which would be accepted as proof in a court of law. Just, because a statement may not give use to legal action, are the media therefore excused this responsibility entirely?

Publishing controversial statements which cannot be immediately checked happens all the time in the media. There's nothing wrong about this in itself. But media which allow themselves to be used passively as mere conduits for extraordinary statements are in the long run a part of the entertainment or public relations industry rather than part of the information business.

These are the grounds on which editorial decisions can best be "made, and not just on the unrewarding basis of second-guessing what the courts will or will not do at some unspecified date in the future (if at all). The courts have their own job to do.

I have always believed that the patron saint of journalists is, or should be, St Thomas, who wanted to put his own hand into wound. To put it another way, why should self-exculpatory statements from known criminals be accepted with less rigorous checking and analysis than statements from, say, cabinet ministers?