Here’s a quote from today’s editorial in the Irish Examiner criticising ethical standards in UK politics:
The sane, sensible and, at times, sedate manner in which politics is generally conducted in Ireland makes us ill-prepared to understand how otherwise civilised nations can tolerate the most outrageous shenanigans of their political leaders.
Here’s a reality check for this publication:
Leo Varadkar is due to become Taoiseach again within months. He is still the subject of a criminal investigation. There has been practically no recognition, analysis or outrage from mainstream media to this impending disgrace on our country.
In the UK, the ‘outrageous shenanigans’ of political leaders are mercilessly scrutinised and condemned. In Ireland, mainstream media is ultra-selective about which political parties are to be condemned.
‘Please note, although this controversy occurred over a month ago and was the subject of an excellent article by Vanessa Foran, I believe the hostile reaction by mainstream media to Paddy Cosgrave’s anti-corruption campaigning deserves as much coverage as possible.’
On November 6 last, Irish Examiner journalist Michael Clifford wrote an article that can only be described as gutter journalism at its very worst.
The target of Clifford’s attack was entrepreneur and anti-corruption campaigner Paddy Cosgrave.
Cosgrave is co-founder of the hugely successful Web Summit and used that platform at this year’s event to highlight very serious allegations of corruption against then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
The allegations, published by Village Magazine, claims that Varadkar illegally leaked a confidential document related to negotiations for a new General Practitioner contract. The allegations are so serious that Varadkar is now the subject of a criminal investigation.
Cosgrave brilliantly used the event, attended by 43,000 people from 128 countries, to expose to the world the rot that lies at the heart of Ireland’s governance.
Clifford focused his attack on Cosgrave and whistleblower Bowes. He openly questioned Bowes integrity by comparing his courage to the guest of honour at the event, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
To present the whole farrago as an introduction to Ms Haugen, a genuine, courageous whistleblower, was arguably insulting to her.
Clearly, Clifford does not believe that Bowes is a genuine whistleblower despite the fact that his revelations triggered a criminal investigation into the then prime minister of our country.
The journalist then attacked Cosgrave by inaccurately claiming he linked the notorious activities of Weinstein and Epstein with Varadkar’s alleged crime.
Clifford wrote:
To leave open the possibility to an uninformed audience that whatever he did could be bracketed in notoriety with the activities of Weinstein and Epstein is contemptible.
Clifford then, hypocritically, did exactly what he had just [falsely] condemned Cosgrave of doing. He linked the notorious journalist, Gemma O’Doherty with Cosgrave’s actions.
Once upon a time, Gemma O’Doherty held a similar role in the public square before she took a sharp turn to the right. There is no reason in the world to believe that Paddy would follow her but you have to wonder what exactly he will do next.
So why the hypocrisy, why would Clifford insult and condemn one whistleblower and his supporter and praise another?
The answer, I believe, depends on who the whistleblower is and who they are exposing.
Ms. Haugen is an American citizen, she’s an outsider. Her whistleblowing poses no threat to those who rule the roost in Irish politics.
But, in the eyes of an establishment journalist like Clifford, Cosgrave’s relentless and effective anti-corruption campaigning is a direct threat to the power of the ruling political class that he and his newspaper so strongly support.
And Clifford himself, helpfully, provides the evidence for the truth of this claim.
In defence of Varadkar he writes:
He [Varadkar] was stupid rather than corrupt and he may have broken the law but there was no personal gain in it for him.
If it was just a case of stupidity on Varadkar’s part then surely we can expect the Gardai to drop their criminal investigation now that this journalist has delivered his judgement on the case?
It also appears that Clifford does not believe that political corruption is a crime. How else can we reconcile his view that ‘Varadkar may have broken the law but he’s not corrupt’?
Even more bizarre, particularly for a journalist, is Clifford’s suggestion that there should be no accountability if there was no personal gain in the crime.
Coveney is not a crooked politician, McConnell told the nation adding –
The true scandal here has been Coveney and Fine Gael’s utter failure to kill this off long before now.
Here we have a journalist, the political editor of one of the most influential newspapers in the country suggesting that the ‘killing off’ of a serious scandal involving cronyism and possible law breaking should take precedence over political accountability.
I wrote before about the disturbing malaise that’s eating away at standards in Irish journalism. Clifford’s intemperate and biased rant is a particularly nasty example of that malaise.
There’s a constant stream of articles by mainstream journalists struggling to explain why the political establishment they so loyally serve, continues to lose popular support.
The articles all take similar form.
A brief history of the failing fortunes of their favoured party, be it Fine Gael, Fianna Fail or Labour. Sometimes we’re presented with bizarre reasons for the collapse in support for these parties but more often than not, no explanation whatsoever is given.
In place of truth and reality these journalists invariably resort to delusional analysis.
Writing about Fianna Fail’s continuing decline, he makes the following points without providing any explanation or analysis.
The rapidly changing nature of Irish society [forced] Fine Gael and Fianna Fail into coalition.
The 85% vote received by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in the 1982 election was halved by 2020.
Sinn Fein leader, Mary Lou McDonald, will almost certainly be the next Taoiseach.
So here, briefly, is the reason for the above developments which McGee fears to address.
It was not the changing nature of Irish society that led Fine Gael and Fianna Fail to form a coalition. It was an act of desperation by both parties to hold onto the power and privilege they have enjoyed for decades.
The continuing fall in support for the parties of the centre between 1982 and 2020 is a direct consequence of the incompetence, arrogance and corruption of the ruling political class.
McDonald is likely to be the next Taoiseach because the people are desperate to get rid of the current corrupt political class. The people want radical change, that’s what they have been voting for over the past several elections.
Establishment journalists do not see this because they operate within the same bubble occupied by the ruling political class.
So, instead of exposing the rot at the centre of Irish politics, journalists such as McGee resort to attacking those who are challenging the old, dying regime. Sinn Fein, because it poses the greatest threat to the power of that regime, is usually the prime target.
McGee’s analysis is both amateurish and delusional. He claims that a section of the electorate is strongly opposed to a Sinn Fein led government because of
The horrible, inhumane and cruel things the republican movement did during the troubles for which there were no grounds to claim justification.
There is no doubt that there are many opposed to a Sinn Fein led government because of what happened during the troubles but for a journalist to make such a political point without a balancing context, is to indulge in cheap propaganda.
For example, an unbiased journalist would balance the activities of the republican movement with the ruthless apartheid system operated by Unionists over a period of 50 years.
Next, he praises the openness of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail’s weekly parliamentary meetings and condemns the so-called secrecy of Sinn Fein meetings, suggesting that the party is acting undemocratically.
Of course, McGee knows very well that all political parties strive to keep their weekly meetings private. The only reason we know what goes on at FG/FF meetings is because they leak like a sieve. He also knows that the leaks are a reflection of the rancour and disunity within these two parties while Sinn Fein’s success in keeping their deliberations confidential is an indication of the party’s unity of purpose.
The purpose of this fake analysis is, of course, to throw mud in the hope that some will stick. It’s an effective propaganda tool but one that is spurned by professional journalists.
McGee ends his article on a note of high arrogance when he wonders how Sinn Fein will deal with sensitive security departments if they enter government.
How will it deal with the Department of Justice, the Defence Forces and the Garda? Sinn Féin is an erstwhile enemy, there is no other way of putting it.
Actually, there is another way of putting it.
Sinn Fein is a 100% legitimate political party with massive and growing support. That support stems from the democratic power of the people who are more than willing to trust Sinn Fein representatives serving in any department.
It is the height of paternalistic arrogance for a journalist to take upon himself the notion that the people’s democratic choice should be conditional or limited in any manner, in forming a government.
In his unquestioning loyalty to the rotten centre of Irish politics McGee is blind to the fact that the people are increasingly seeing his beloved political class as the enemy and Sinn Fein as the only hope for an accountable democracy.
This type of journalism is not without consequences. Good quality political analysis is critical in a democracy. When journalists speak truth to power, political behaviour improves and democracy remains healthy.
When politicians are confident that journalists will not only defend their errant behaviour but actively attack those who challenge the rotten status quo, the political system and democracy is exposed to serious damage.
That is exactly what is happening in Ireland today.
Any rational person listening to Sarah McInerney’s interview of Eoghan Harris could be forgiven for thinking that he suffers from an illness known as Delusional Disorder. People suffering from this mental illness are incapable of telling what’s real from what’s imagined.
In this context it is pointless responding directly to his ramblings with any seriousness. However, the failure of the establishment media to unequivocally condemn the behaviour of Harris and his collaborators is another story altogether.
Take communications guru Terry Prone for example. Writing in the Irish Examiner she was in no doubt where the blame lay.
In 50 years, nobody stopped Eoghan Harris. That’s our shame, not his.
This bizarre attempt to exonerate a favoured son of the establishment by blaming everybody, except him, suggests that Prone may also be experiencing a touch of Delusional Disorder.
But for the record and for Ms. Prone’s information somebody did notice the moment when Harris went off the rails as a journalist. Here’s an article I wrote six years ago in response to Harris’ refusal to criticise Denis O’Brien, the then owner of Independent Newspapers, during the Siteserv scandal.
Eoghan Harris: A ‘journalist’ with little integrity
16 June 2015
In response to the ongoing Siteserv scandal Sunday Independent columnist Eoghan Harris has effectively admitted that he’s a coward and a man/journalist of little integrity.
On prudent reflection, I decided to take the advice of the Kerry sage, Tommy the “Kaiser” Fitzgerald: Don’t say anything, and don’t write anything, because when you put the black on the white, you are fucked boy.
What a sad end for a man who, wielding a razor sharp brain, used to tear strips from the hypocritical, arrogant and corrupt gangsters who misrule our country.
Now he’s a fully signed up toady of the rotten culture he once so brilliantly challenged. Whatever dulled his rapier like pen over the years has also dulled his mind to a state of stupidity where he effectively admits that he’s an intellectual slave to Denis O’Brien.
At least his many colleagues at ‘Independent’ Newspapers, also toadies to the master, make some effort, no matter how pathetic, at journalistic integrity.
The rest of Harris’ article accurately reflects the only ‘talent’ he still possesses – chief cheerleader for the establishment’s anti-Sinn Fein propaganda campaign. He begins this section of his article with the words:
Let me turn to a safer topic.
Propaganda is, of course, always a safe topic for a journalist because there’s no need for truth or honesty but how sad to witness any journalist actually write, in black and white, the words
In 2018 Stephen Donnelly Fianna Fail TD was refused permission to erect a fence around his home. In 2021 a fence was erected around his home at taxpayer’s expense.
Just two things changed between 2018 and 2021- Donnelly became the Minister for Health and sometime between the end of January and early Feb this year, a number of incidents were alleged to have occurred at the Minister’s home.
But this article is not about the Minister or the alleged incidents. It’s about declining standards in Irish mainstream journalism. These declining standards are clearly evident in how this particular story was reported.
The story broke on 20 Feb last when Irish Examiner journalists Paul Hosford and Aoife Moore reported they had received an anonymous tipoff that a security fence had been erected outside the Minister’s home as a result of the incidents.
An unidentified source said the fence was erected after items were thrown at windows and left on the minister’s doorstep.
An unidentified spokesperson for the Minister declined to comment except to say the fence was for security reasons.
The story was accompanied by an outraged [anonymous] editorial condemning the alleged attack on the minister’s home.
So, what have we so far?
An anonymous tipoff followed by an unidentified source, followed by an unidentified spokesperson alleging, without providing any evidence, that at some point in the recent past, persons unknown threw items at the windows of the Minister’s home and left items on his doorstep.
In other words, what we have so far is – hearsay
Later that day Ms Moore was interviewed by Damien O’Reilly on RTEs Brendan O’Connor Show where RTE had upped the language surrounding the story from ‘incidents’ to ‘an attack’ on the minister’s home.
Unfortunately, Ms Moore did not provide any additional information but did expand on what she did not know – some examples.
Is there any evidence that this is related to his work?
It appears it is but we can’t go into detail.
Do we know what was thrown at the house?
We don’t know.
Did it involve an individual, a group, was it over a prolonged period?
We don’t know. The advisor didn’t really want to go into it in any more detail. I think they would rather if the story was a private family matter.
So here we have a journalist reporting an [alleged] attack on a government minister and happily accepting that such a serious event can be treated as a private family matter.
Ms. Moore was however very supportive and even emotional on behalf of the minister.
He has three young children…and obviously he’s up in Dublin for a lot of the time…and of course he’d be really concerned about his children and his wife. It’s just really rotten to be honest. I think everyone is really disgusted that politicians can’t go to work without having to worry about the safety of their families.
Staying with the emotional angle O’Reilly/RTE linked this alleged attack with the perfectly legitimate, peaceful protests held outside the then Minister for Health Simon Harris’ home in 2019.
Ms. Moore was also happy to go along with this unprofessional linking of two completely different stories.
He had a very young baby at the time, his wife and daughter were at home, it was very scary.
O’Reilly concluded the interview with a strong note of outrage:
Who would want to go into politics when you hear stories like that?
That appeared to be the end of the story but then, curiously, a full seven weeks later, on April 9, the story was resurrected when Newstalk journalist Ciara Kelly interviewed Minister Donnelly in his constituency in Greystones Co Wicklow.
Listening to the interview it was clear Ms. Kelly is a great admirer of the minister, excitedly telling listeners that both of them were locals and even attended the same school.
The form of the interview was very similar to that on RTE between journalist Aoife Moore and journalist Damien O’Reilly. Very friendly, no challenging questions and buckets of sympathy for the minister for the alleged attack on his home.
Does it frighten you that your family is being swept up into all of this?
Obviously, but I don’t want to get into it too much details for reasons you’ll understand.
If Ms. Kelly did understand why a government minister would want to keep the details of an alleged attack on his home secret, she wasn’t telling her listeners. Just as journalist Aoife Moore was happy to accept that such an attack could be treated as a private family matter.
Ms. Kelly’s co-presenter Shane Coleman concluded the piece in a similar manner as Damien O’Reilly did on RTE by angrily asking:
Why would anyone go into politics and subject themselves to such abuse.
So here we have five journalists reporting a story as fact without any real evidence. Apparently cooperating with anonymous sources and the minister to keep details of the story secret and expressing strong support and sympathy for the minister’s unsubstantiated claims.
This is not journalism, it’s hearsay bordering on false reporting. Journalists cannot retain credibility when they publish stories without corroborating evidence.
Respect for their profession is also seriously damaged when they take sides, particularly when they take the side of a government minister who stands to gain from such media support.
A deep and disturbing malaise has taken hold of journalism right across mainstream media. The infection stems from the decades long close and inappropriate association of journalists with the rotten centre of Irish politics principally composed of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour.
For a long time the sickness was hardly noticeable but the brutal austerity implemented by the political centre in response to the 2008 economic collapse opened the eyes of many Irish citizens. And not just to how power was wielded in the interests of the powerful, but how mainstream media provided unquestioning support for the actions of the political establishment.
The unhealthy relationship between mainstream media and the ruling political class has become so close that the journalists themselves seem to be genuinely unaware of it.
A recent political podcast by the Irish Times, in which readers were invited to submit questions to journalists, provides a startling example of how mainstream journalism has become a parody of what good journalism should be all about.
I submitted the following question to the podcast which was selected for discussion:
Why is the link between the rise of Sinn Fein and the ongoing disintegration of the political centre ignored by mainstream media?
Almost all comment and analysis surrounding this historic development focuses on attacking Sinn Fein on behalf of and in defence of the political centre.
There is virtually no analysis or comment as to why this is happening.
Harry McGee, the Irish Times political correspondent, responded but failed to adequately address the question. Instead, he unwittingly revealed the true nature of the tainted relationship between mainstream journalism and the political establishment.
We’re working in an environment that is like a big boarding school and the thing is, you do forge relationships with politicians. And journalists depend on politicians especially when they’re looking to get stories in advance. And that makes it slightly problematic when it comes to criticising politicians – suddenly you have to pounce and bite the hand that feeds.
Effectively, McGee is making the shocking admission that Irish mainstream journalists do not observe one of the central principles of international journalism – the obligation to speak truth to power.
He is candidly admitting that mainstream journalists do not come down hard on establishment politicians because they depend on them for stories.
It is, of course, true that journalists line up like ducks in a pond to be fed tit bits by politicians in return for favourable reportage but it is rare to witness a journalist actually admit to this reality.
McGee went on to deny that there was any concerted attack on Sinn Fein feebly claiming that the problem lay with Sinn Fein’s reluctance to make itself accessible to media.
It’s not so much that there’s any attempt to attack Sinn Fein. I think there’s just been a difficulty of getting access to Sinn Fein but that has become less of a difficulty in recent years.
The notion that Sinn Fein is shy about engaging with media is almost as ridiculous as claiming that there’s no concerted campaign against the rise of that party.
So here’s the truth that McGee and his colleagues in mainstream media are so fearful of confronting.
The political centre is on a death spiral after decades of corruption, incompetence and arrogance wrapped in a blanket of delusion that they have a divine right to rule.
This is not opinion, it’s fact. Labour are in the waiting room to extinction, Fine Gael effectively lost the last three elections and Fianna Fail are struggling to remain relevant as the the party begins to tear itself asunder in an internal civil war.
All of this has come about for one simple but powerful reason – the Irish electorate, in election after election, has rejected the old corrupt regime and is demanding radical change.
But this ongoing revolutionary shift across the entire political landscape is practically ignored by mainstream media. Instead, in an increasingly desperate effort to defend and preserve the old regime, we see an avalanche of ‘end of civilisation’ type articles and broadcasts warning of the dangers of populism, Trumpism, the so-called evils of social media and increasingly bizarre anti-Sinn Fein propaganda.
The sickness that has resulted in mainstream media abandoning its obligation to speak truth to power is best summed up by McGee’s mindset:
‘We fear criticising politicians in case they stop giving us stories’
This dangerous mindset is in stark contrast to the highest principles of the profession as expressed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault:
Only the courageous may pursue the truth-to-power course as they risk losing their friends, their liberty, even their lives.
Sarah McInerney is one of RTEs top news and current affairs broadcasters. As such she is required to exercise strict impartiality on all matters controversial but particularly in relation to political issues.
The general public should not be able to tell the personal views of broadcasters such as McInerney. So my question is, why is she allowed to express strong personal political opinions in her column in the Sunday Times?
Just last Sunday, for example, she expressed the opinion that the Taoiseach’s debilitating amiability is a liability in government.
Martin has been too nice for too long; she thundered before going on to say that his softly, softly approach to challenges from his Parliamentary Party and Tanaiste Leo Varadkar was not good for Fianna Fail.
Her final paragraph could have come from the mouth of the Taoiseach’s most worried advisor:
You have to play the political game, no matter how distasteful it may be. If Martin wants to survive two years as Taoiseach, with his party still intact, it’s time for a mini makeover. No more Mr Nice Guy.
Our audiences should not be able to tell from our output the personal views of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.
And, more precisely:
…may not express personal views in RTÉ output, online or elsewhere, [my underline] and must be careful in their use of social media to avoid any perception of partiality.
Everyone who read the article now knows that McInerney is concerned about Michael Martin’s performance as Taoiseach and the continuing drop in support for Fianna Fail.
This is damaging to her credibility as a news and current affairs broadcaster. Any robust questioning of opposition TDs will be seen as support for Fianna Fail. Any perceived soft interview with Fianna Fail TDs or ministers will be seen in a similar light.
As one of the most popular and admired news broadcasters in the country McInerney has the potential to wield enormous political influence.
She should not be allowed to do so. Time RTE management had a word in her ear.
In an interview with Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald on RTEs This Week programme, David McCullagh quizzed her about the use of the word ‘collusion’ in the Dail during nominations for a new Taoiseach.
You said the Government parties colluded in frustrating the voice of change, in what way was it collusion?
McDonald confirmed her belief that there was collusion between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael but she didn’t get much further before being interrupted by McCullah who declared triumphantly that he had looked up the word in the Oxford English dictionary.
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.
This type of ‘journalism’ is bizarre and disturbing. McCullagh/RTE picked out one word, from one person in one political party and went to the bother of researching the exact meaning of that word with the obvious intention of embarrassing the leader of that party.
McDonald made the reasonable and correct argument that the word ‘collusion’ has a far wider application in the English language.
But McCullagh was determined in his attack:
Some people would see the use of the word as almost Trumpian.
Speaking with Sinn Fein’s Louise O’Reilly McInerney demanded to know why McDonald had used the ‘collusion ‘ word.
As with Mary Lou McDonald, O’Reilly didn’t get far in her reply before being interrupted by McInerney who expressed her personal opinion that the word was used deliberatly by Sinn Fein.
The use of the word and this impression being given, deliberately, I think by Sinn Fein that the two parties were plotting.
O’Reilly, stating the obvious fact that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael did work together to keep Sinn Fein out was again interrupted by McInerney in her eagerness to support the establishment parties.
How do you know that, I mean they would say they came together because their party policies were more aligned than they were with yours.
As McDonald said, the word ‘collusion’ has a broad application in language but if we take McCullagh’s strict definition and apply it to his and McInerney’s behaviour we can see that the definition fits perfectly.
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.
Any objective observer could be forgiven for concluding that this was a [non] story generated behind closed doors by RTE journalists with the intention of deceiving listeners into believing that Mary Lou McDonald had done something wrong.
This is not journalism, it’s not professional reporting or analysis. It appears to be the deliberate targeting of a political party that poses a challenge to the fading power of the ruling political class.
Increasingly in some quarters of politics, social media is used to attempt to systemically discredit the media. This is designed to encourage the public to ignore anything negative that appears in the media about a particular politician or party.
This attack on the media, according to Clifford, encourages people to ignore facts and blame the messenger. And, he warns, the tactic is undermining the media’s role in holding power to account.
Specifically, Clifford is writing about Sinn Fein supporters who allege that mainstream media is biased against the party. He goes on to accuse those supporters of using the bias claim to discredit negative scrutiny of Sinn Fein.
Michael Clifford is wrong, as wrong as only an establishment journalist can be when faced with the uncomfortable truth of rampant mainstream media bias.
There are any number of examples of this bias not just against Sinn Fein but against any person or organisation, such as the water protesters, who threaten the power of the ruling political establishment.
The following is just one example from Clifford’s newspaper, The Irish Examiner.
A few weeks ago the leader of the Green Party Eamon Ryan used the ‘N’ word during a speech in the Dail. Ryan was referring to an article in the Irish Times by the writer Sean Gallen in which he described how racist abuse during his childhood affected his whole life.
Here’s how the political editor of the Irish Examiner, Daniel McConnell, responded:
The reaction to {Ryan} was astonishing and, in places, downright nasty.
On social media, the great online sewer, he was slammed.
Was Ryan wrong to use it as opposed to saying ‘the N-word’ or some other variation when making his point?
Or was he justified in saying it within the context of highlighting the abuse suffered by Gallen?
The rush to condemn did on one level smack of the disturbing pattern of the left to preach to everyone as to what speech is acceptable and which is not.
The moral high priests and priestesses who seem to go out their way to take offence do little to progress the cause of inclusivity or equality.
Four years ago, in May 2016, the then leader of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams also used the ‘N’ word in the exact same manner as Ryan. That is, he used the word in the context of the suffering of the nationalist population of Northern Ireland under British/Unionist rule, just as Ryan used it to highlight the abuse suffered by Gallen.
The bias of the Irish Examiner is exposed for all to see when the favourable [and justified] defence of Ryan is contrasted against the damning judgement of Adams by an anonymous Irish Examiner journalist, hiding behind an editorial, for the very same thing.
[I have underlined what I consider to be the contradictions between the two responses]
While Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams has defended using a racist word for a black person in a tweet, his judgement must be called into question.
As leader of a political party, he has a duty to guard against making gratuitously offensive references.
Whether he likes it or not, his Sunday night use of the six-letter N-word is the kind of word that is synonymous with the attitude towards black people in America’s deep south. Whether used unwittingly or not, it a deeply offensive term.
It is simply not good enough to tell his followers on the social media platform Twitter that he was watching a Quentin Tarantino film, Django Unchained, comparing the struggle against slavery in the US to the struggle by Irish nationalists.
If it had been a film about US president Barack Obama, he would hardly have used such a racist term. So why did he use it? Having drawn criticism on both social media and the Washington Times, that is the right question which Mr Adams must ask himself.
The bias and hypocrisy of Irish Examiner journalists to the two incidents is clear to anybody with an ounce of objectivity.
Mr. Clifford tells us that the so-called tactic by ‘some quarters of politics’ on social media to discredit mainstream media is undermining the media’s role in holding power to account.
There’s no need of such a conspiracy. A declining standard of professionalism coupled with an obvious bias against those who challenge the ruling political establishment are doing more than enough to undermine trust in and credibility of mainstream media.
Former RTE broadcaster Sean O’Rourke never made a secret of his contempt for Sinn Fein. At times his contempt bordered on outright hatred as he interrogated and insulted members of that party at every opportunity. For O’Rourke, journalistic objectivity was never as important as keeping Sinn Fein away from the levers of power.
Sarah McInerney, O’Rourke’s replacement, seems intent on continuing in his biased footsteps.
We witnessed the latest example of this unprincipled journalism in what has become a regular RTE strategy when it come to Sinn Fein – the propaganda ambush.
The ambush followed an interview of the Sinn Fein leader by the Sunday Independent. The Independent is a propaganda newspaper with a rabid hatred of Sinn Fein so it was no surprise that the interview was manipulated to demonise Mary Lou McDonald and her party.
Someone in RTE then, apparently, decided to follow up on the Independent’s rogue journalism by setting up their own propaganda ambush, Sarah McInerney was more than happy to cooperate.
I should make clear, this article is not about Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Fein or the IRA. Those interested in how McDonald handled the interview can listen back here on the RTE website.
This article is about how media organisations with a particular agenda, such as RTE, set out to damage the credibility or reputation of certain people and organisations who are considered a threat to the political status quo.
The form and delivery of questions asked are crucial if such ambushes are to be successful. In this case the strategy used by RTE/McInerney can be broken down into three parts.
One: Ask a question that’s impossible to answer.
Two: Repeatedly and forcibly put the question in pursuit of self-condemnation while ignoring all answers given in defence.
Three: Include a deeply emotional element to the question.
The impossible to answer question consisted of two parts:
Was the IRA justified in killing people, and, would you have taken up arms in the conflict?
While repeatedly putting the question RTE/McInerney introduced the emotional element of the ambush by exploiting the death of a 13 year child in the conflict.
Do you really think it was justified to kill a 13 year old child?
Over three thousand people died in the Northern Ireland conflict. Tens of thousands suffered serious physical and psychological injuries. British soldiers, police officers, Unionists militia, the IRA and the British Government all engaged in the killing.
In a propaganda ambush it is important to leave out this bigger picture because it provides objective context that could weaken the damaging impact of the strategy.
RTE/McInerney didn’t need or indeed expect McDonald to actually say the killing of children was justified in the conflict. It was only necessary to repeatedly throw the deceitful question at her to create an impression in the minds of listeners that McDonald was being dishonestly evasive and therefore guilty in some way – damage done, mission accomplished.
We know this was a propaganda ambush because the Northern Ireland conflict ended 22 years ago with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. To demand explanations from one party to the agreement so long after the conflict has ended without context and without demanding the same explanations from all other parties is clearly an exercise in propaganda.
Practically the entire world, including the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and the vast majority of citizens in the Republic and the United Kingdom, accepted the agreement and by so doing recognised Sinn Fein as a legitimate political party that was genuinely intent on pursuing its policies by peaceful means only.
Only two groups rejected the agreement, the Democratic Unionist Party and the political establishment in the Republic. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael along with fellow travellers such as right wing politician Michael McDowell have never accepted what the world has accepted, that Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party. By so doing they are, effectively, rejecting the Good Friday Agreement.
Their motive is as cynical as it is self-serving – Sinn Fein, as an outsider, poses a major threat to the exclusive power the established parties have wielded since independence. A power they have consistently abused at great cost to the quality of Irish democracy and the interests of Irish citizens.
The Irish media, led by RTE, is overwhelmingly conservative and pro establishment. The historic and, for the establishment, shocking public endorsement of Sinn Fein in the recent election has panicked them into abandoning all semblance of objectivity and professionalism in defence of that establishment.
