Remember, I said that I distrusted the influence of the British media in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
Sarah Carey had an opinion piece in the Irish Times during the week on this very topic. Since the Irish Times is still getting to grips with new media and this piece may disappear off into paid subscriber only material, let me give you a few quotes:
“For anyone relying on the Sunday Times for information on its continuing coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, they would do well to ask themselves [who is behind this and what is his or her agenda].
For over three years, I worked for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, which, like other British newspapers the Sun, News of the World and the Times, plus Sky television, is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International. During my three years with the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, I was only vaguely aware that it was a distant outpost of Murdoch’s empire.
We seemed to be like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings. The Eye of the evil Lord Sauron was rarely fixed on our petty domestic issues and we got on with the business of political and social opinion without any comment from Wapping. Except for Lisbon.
Some months before the date for the referendum was announced, I told Irish editor, Frank Fitzgibbon, that I was eager to write a piece in favour of Lisbon. At the time, we seemed to be in agreement on the political imperative that the treaty be passed, though it’s possible I misunderstood his views. We also discussed the fact that Murdoch’s well known pro-US-hawkish views would obviously be the opposite, but we shrugged our shoulders.
Time passed, the date was set and I staked my claim to the pro-treaty column. But something had changed. Fitzgibbon told me that not only would I not be writing a pro-treaty column, but no other writer anywhere in the paper would either. This was not a matter for Sarah’s precious little ego, but a cover-to-cover ban on any pro-treaty comment. Apparently since our first conversation, Fitzgibbon had looked into his heart and discovered the democratic deficit. From seemingly being in favour of Lisbon, he was now cheerfully banning all opinion favourable to Lisbon from the paper.
He argued that only broadcasters were legally required to present balanced coverage, and that as a privately-owned newspaper the Sunday Times was under no legal obligation to offer opposing views. I countered that while this was legally correct, he was under an ethical obligation to provide an alternative view, especially when that view tallied with the extraordinary political consensus that Lisbon was good for Ireland. He claimed he was under no such obligation – and that was that.
I should have written the column anyway and resigned if he refused to print it. But I was in no financial position to go around resigning on a point of principle, and I backed off. So no kudos to me. Part of me accepted that Fitzgibbon had a point: everyone is entitled to their agenda. The problem only arises – which it did in this case – when it’s not really your agenda at all. […]
In whose interests did the Sunday Times campaign against the Lisbon Treaty to the exclusion of all favourable comment? Was it because they really believed that Ireland is best served by wrecking the treaty or because Eurosceptic views were imported, or worse, imposed, from Britain? [….]
If our entire political establishment was dismayed because Lisbon was defeated and the cheers from Wapping were ringing in our ears, doesn’t that make anyone wonder whether No was the right answer to the question?”
Case closed, wouldn’t you agree?
I do find this pretty shocking as an instance of how the media can deliberately skew debate. As a Brit myself, may I weakly plead that I was and am firmly pro-Europe, and that I would prefer not to be tarred with this particular brush? The newspapers present a rather skewed perspective on British opinion.
Case certainly not closed. If you really worked for a newspaper for three years and, in your own words, was only ‘vaguely aware’ that it was part of the Murdoch group, then your judgement on Lisbon is hardly to be regarded as flawless either! Newspapers have well established viewpoints, welcome to the real world. With the Irish political class trying to now bar equal radio and tv access to the No campaign in the next referendum, I think you should be looking at their failures and the end of proper democratic representation through a discredited group of old parties, rather than trying to dredge up some patronising tired old anti-English diatribe dressed up as political commentary.
Damian, you seem not to have read the post very carefully. I didn’t write this, Sarah Carey did. I assume she did work for the Sunday Times, what possible motivation could she have to lie about this? In Ireland we have a system of proportional representation which is extremely democratic. So democratic that we almost always end up with a coalition reflecting a variety of opinion, something that is, to the abiding regret of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, not a feature of elections run on a first past the post basis.
This is not “a tired old anti-English diatribe”, it is a reflection on the fact that the media in this country has changed and the implications of this. This column is clear evidence that in this particular matter in this particular paper, editorial policy for Ireland was given a clear line by London. I believe that this line was not in this country’s best interests, the majority would clearly disagree with me but, either way, I am sure we could agree that Mr. Murdoch was not particularly exercised about the consequences of a no vote for Ireland. While I wouldn’t agree with the no campaigners here, their concerns relate to Ireland and what is best for the country in the future. I would suspect that these are not Mr. Murdoch’s concerns.
Quite right Belgianwaffle, hoisted by my own petard – it’s Sarah I’m having a go at not you!! I think it’s not that she’s lying, it’s just that the newspapers all have their own stance on things and she should surely know the position of a paper she works on! And that if an editor doesn’t want a piece by you, there’s nothing moral about it (or indeed about carrying balanced coverage). I think what bothers really me is the silly attitude of the Irish political class on all this and the complicity of a lot of journalists who work for those who cannot believe that their attempts to ‘persuade’ the Irish electorate failed – and their only kneejerk response it to accuse Ganley of having worked in England (what a crime) or working in the US (another!). Because they failed totally by refusing to engage with the electorate, they are now trying to rig tv and radio coverage of the forthcoming re-run (and presumably all the other re-runs till they get the right result). It’s hardly democratic is it? There’s no point in having a coalition of tired old parties if they try to rig the only meaningful expression of the democratic will…and then aim to re-run the vote or subvert it, and claim that the expression of that democratic will is a crisis. Remember one thing – the Yes campaigners will never engage the electorate on the actual issue, because there is nothing they can say that will not be challengeable. The Yes campaigners have no confidence in their own position, so they have to hide behind the vague and the general. The only way they can win is by lying about the No side and by indulging in personal smears and invective.
Damian, I fear that we will never agree on this. On a less strident note, do you blog too? I am always interested to inspect my commenters’ blogs….