Bryan Wall: Reporting The Media

at | 20 Replies

From top: Nóirín O’Sullivan (left) and Frances Fitzgerald in 2016; Maurice McCabe (centre) with Lorraine McCabe (left) and Katie Hannon during the making of the RTÉ 1 documentary ‘Whistleblower’ broadcast last week; Bryan Wall

The consumption of media and information has always played a vital part in our societies. It allowed us to inform ourselves of the wider world and areas beyond our immediate vicinity and common understanding.

We could argue and debate with others the content of what we had just heard or read, stirring up potential modes of action and behaviour that would later come to define the world we lived in.

In Europe in the 1800s, the coffeehouse played the role of an assembly where people could discuss what they had just discovered via the media of the time. Here the theories of revolution were discussed before being put into action.

Of course, the information that was promulgated and received had to be accurate in the first place for it to be of any value. The media had to be trustworthy and reliable. On the other side, ensuring that the media was accurate, or at least perceived as such, was of value to the media themselves given the drive for profits which underlay their motives.

Whether this balance between truth-telling and the need for profit was ever achieved is highly debatable.

In their new book, the two men behind Media Lens, lay waste to this recurring theme of a trustworthy, objective, and fact-finding media. In Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality, David Edwards and David Cromwell demonstrate how the supposedly different ideologies between the main media outlets in Britain is simply a myth.

If there is indeed a spectrum offering a range of different viewpoints in the media why then, they ask, on so many occasions does reporting of certain issues bear striking similarities in terms of content and tone? The answer is that the content of the mainstream media reflects the interests of power.

Power in the form of the government and power in the form of wealth define the boundaries of acceptable reporting in the media.

What this means, then, is that anything which attempts to highlight certain issues which will directly impact the government and the powerful will have to deal with the full force of the mainstream media being directed against them.

It also means that when certain issues need promoting by the government and the elite, they having willing stenographers in the broadcasting and newspaper industries.

In Britain the most notable target in recent years has been Jeremy Corbyn, who has come in for obloquy right across the mainstream media, regardless of his actual policies and statements.

In their chapter about Corbyn’s treatment by the media, Edwards and Cromwell note that The Guardian, the Independent, The Times, and the BBC, all rounded on Corbyn, and oftentimes with the same kind of language.

In The Guardian, Corbyn’s policies were described as “‘more a matter of faith than a viable programme’”. The Independent declared Corbyn was “‘not the answer’” and that Tony Blair, instead, “‘earned his right to be listened to’”, even though he “‘remains controversial’”; presumably controversial given his role in the illegal invasion of Iraq which has cost millions of innocent lives. For their part, The Times wrote that Corbyn “‘believes Britain has not learnt its lessons from Karl Marx’”, and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

The BBC, fared no better in spite of their professed commitment to objective journalism. When Corbyn was interviewed by BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg, she was appalled when he said he was “‘opposed to nuclear weapons’” along with being “‘opposed to holding and usage of nuclear weapons’” after she had asked him if he would press the “‘nuclear button’” if he was Prime Minister.

Ms Kuenssberg told him it that “‘it looks to voters like you would put your own principles ahead of the protection’” of Britain, unaware of the irony of such a statement. Corbyn responded by telling her he is somebody “‘absolutely and totally committed to spreading international law, spreading international human rights’”.

To this Ms Kuenssberg asked, “‘And that’s more important than the protection of this country?’” No further comment is needed given the obvious implications of such a worldview.

Ireland does not come in for scrutiny in Propaganda Blitz. Nonetheless, and with even a cursory look, the same patterns emerge when it comes to our own home-grown controversies. Take the Disclosures Tribunal and the publication of the Charleton Report.

In the immediate aftermath of the publication of the report, we were inundated with headlines regarding former Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald. She was sharing the headlines with Maurice McCabe. Across a number of media outlets the same type of language and reporting was used.

RTÉ reported Minister for Health Simon Harris saying “Ms Fitzgerald was hounded from office and now deserved an apology after being vindicated”.

On TheJournal.ie an article opened with the sentence “FORMER TÁNAISTE FRANCES Fitzgerald has been vindicated by the Disclosure Tribunal”.

In the Irish Examiner, a headline ran “Frances Fitzgerald has been vindicated by the Disclosure Tribunal report published this afternoon.”

The irish Independent also reported the comments by Simon Harris, writing that “Mr Harris said this morning that Ms Fitzgerald had been ‘vindicated’”.

For their part The Irish Times used slightly different language — but the message was the same — writing that “The Tribunal gives a clear exoneration to Ms Fitzgerald”.

Interestingly, in the Charleton Report itself not once is the word vindicate used in reference to Frances Fitzgerald. Instead, it is used in reference to Maurice McCabe, who, as is stated in the report, had already been vindicated by the O’Higgins Commission.  It is also used in reference to Martin Callinan who, the report noted, wished to see his reputation vindicated.

Where it was used by Fitzgerald, however, was in her own resignation statement last year. She said that her resignation “will allow me to vindicate my good name at the Charleton tribunal”.

What the media have done, then, and quite transparently at that, is use the actual vindication of Maurice McCabe to try to whitewash the reputation of Frances Fitzgerald.

Justice Charleton did not vindicate the former Justice Minister, yet the Irish media were more than happy to echo the very same and distinctive word that she herself had used to describe her preferred outcome.

There is also the issue of Nóirín O’Sullivan being appointed to a high-level position with the United Nations (UN) and how that has been reported. Her role in what happened to Maurice McCabe and John Wilson has been ignored in the coverage of her new appointment.

Justice Charleton found that it was “improbable that she did not have an inkling at the very least about Commissioner Callinan’s views”, with her presence when Martin Callinan made the now infamous comments about both McCabe and Wilson to TD John McGuinness also being noted by the latter. Important context like this is missing.

The reporting of The Irish Times was indicative in that it downplayed these serious issues with O’Sullivan by writing that Justice Charleton “rejected one portion of her evidence and found another to be ‘improbable’.”

With the recent documentary about Maurice McCabe that was broadcast by RTÉ we are left, as expected, with many gaps in the narrative. Gemma O’Doherty is left out of the equation completely. This is a considerable elision given her consistent support for Maurice McCabe from the very beginning, her reporting on Martin Callinan’s penalty points being wiped, and the price she eventually paid in terms of her career.

Any mention of this would demonstrate that there is indeed a nexus of power that exists in Irish society between the media and certain important and powerful institutions. This could not be reported on in the documentary, however, given the fact that RTÉ itself forms a part of that same nexus.

As Broadsheet’s Olga Cronin pointed out during a discussion on Broadsheet on the Telly last week, editorial decisions had to be taken in order to maximise the reach of documentary in order to bring it to people’s attention.

In a media landscape that wasn’t influenced by power and the powerful this is perfectly acceptable reasoning. A media landscape like this does not exist though, and the fact that such gaps are intentionally created leaves one to conclude that there are things we are not supposed to know.

Where this leaves us and the reliability of the media is plain to see. The media are willing to downplay, under-report, and twist reality to suit an agenda. What this agenda is differs in degree but never in kind.

Most recently it has been the attempt to rehabilitate Frances Fitzgerald and Nóirín O’Sullivan, thereby misleading the wider public into thinking that justice was done by the Justice Charleton and the Disclosures Tribunal.

Where power exists, those in the media across the supposed spectrum find common cause with it. In this case it is the government line that the truth has been discovered and that we should all move on, and ignore the many unanswered questions that remain, that the media has been intent on pummelling us with.

Their tactics appear to have been successful thus far. On the other hand, their hatred and fear of social media points a way forward for us in that it allows us to bypass the traditional media hierarchy.

As long as this avenue remains open, there is always the opportunity to dissent and find the real truth that is often denied us all.

Bryan Wall is an independent journalist based in Cork. His column appears here every Monday. Read more of his work here and follow Bryan on twitter:  @Bryan_Wall

Pic: RTÉ

20 thoughts on “Bryan Wall: Reporting The Media

  1. Cian

    Are you saying that Frances Fitzgerald wasn’t vindicated because the Charleton report didn’t use that precise word?
    Your link to the Irish times says:
    The Tribunal report gives a clear exoneration to Ms Fitzgerald, who was forced to resign from the Government in November 2017 as a result of the political controversy surrounding her role.

    It has also made the finding that her decision not to interfere when informed of the strategy “was not a lazy dodging of the issues but rather a considered response to the information”.

    And it has concluded she had not, at any time, spoken with former Garda commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan about this matter.

    The Tribunal has found she acted appropriately at all times, and had been the political victim of a furore that escalated from a misconception of the Garda strategy towards Sgt McCabe at the O’Higgins Commission two years earlier in 2015.

    These looks like a vindication to me.

    Reply
    1. Bodger

      “She reached out to Maurice McCabe and attempted to solve the workplace-related issues which surrounded him. These efforts were successful at first, but were undermined by what she felt was the necessity to test where he was coming from in the very serious allegations of corruption that he was making before the O’Higgins Commission.
      Her decision in that regard involved talking at length to officials in the Department of Justice and Equality. She is likely to have remembered that, contrary to her evidence, because she realised what was at stake. It is also improbable that she did not have an inkling at the very least about Commissioner Callinan’s views. At the very least, it was more than improbable that nothing emerged in the car journey with him back to Garda Headquarters from the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on 23 January 2014. It was disappointing to hear her evidence on this.” Justice Charleton

      Reply
    2. anne

      “Selflessly resigned”

      More like selfishly did nothing. She also lied about knowing the strategy of NOS at O’Higgins. Then communications appear to show she knew the strategy. She definitely didn’t know the strategy, then she couldn’t remember. Come off it like. Herself & NOS thick as thieves..communicating back & forth & with the Prune wan too.

      She had to go but she clung on as long as possible.

      You might as well quote the judges rants & quotes on Kant & Shakespeare from his findings for all it matters.. but it’s all looks a bit too cosy to me. Was the judge asked to investigate her resignation like?

      These ramblings from auld farts are set up to ensure people like Martin Callinan & the rest of the rotten crew don’t go to jail.

      Reply
  2. A Person

    I find that BS is at least as biased in its reporting as the so-called main stream media. I’ve said this before, and will say it again, BS when live reporting on the Tribunal never once reported that Dave Taylor retracted his evidence against NOS but instead repeatedly attempted to paint her in a poor light.

    And no, I’ve no connection to NOS, main stream media or Francis Fitz or FG, before some gob sheen accuses me of all these sins.

    Reply
    1. Andrew

      You are being selective there though A Person. You do know that. Why be disingenuous ? Dave Taylor did not withdraw his comments in relation to NOS knowledge of the smear campaign. He maintains she did know about it and I find it hardly credible that she didn’t.

      Reply
    2. Cian

      I have to agree that BS are biased[1] – Bolger replied to my original comment above within 5 minutes of me posting – but hasn’t acknowledged in the 4 hours since that his quotes were referring to Nóirín O’Sullivan – whereas my comment was referring to Frances Fitzgerald.

      Anyone reading the comments section here may be mislead into thinking that my comments were refuted. :-(

      [1] this isn’t directed at Olga Cronin. The wider editorial team are very quick to post articles discrediting the ‘establishment’ and sometimes use clumsy wording that could be read unfavourably.
      Although, to be fair, they do re-word them when it is pointed out.

      Reply
      1. anne

        He might be busy. His quote refers to NOS.. infer whatever you like. If you knew who he was referring just state it & move on. No one is oblidged to sit around & chit chat with you.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          If he is talking about NOS it is totally out of context. My post was about Frances Fitzgerald. But he didn’t say who the ‘she’s was. So it looks like the ‘she’ was Frances Fitzgerald and that she wasn’t vindicated.

          Reply
    1. A Person

      Hi Olga, many thanks for your reply. I did not see previous responses to my comments until now. I was in no way referring to your commentary on the Tribunal as biased at all. I was not referring to your reporting of the Tribunal. Instead I was referring to the fact that BS tended to post long summaries of the Tribunal every week, complete with highlighted text. When Taylor withdrew his evidence (or part thereof) this was never posted, let alone highlighted.

      Reply
  3. lolly

    Does ‘independent journalist’ mean he can’t get anyone to give him a job? I’m sorry but this isn’t journalism, it’s blogging, and badly in need of an editor.

    Reply
  4. McVitty

    I haven’t followed the McCabe story too closely – seems convoluted with claims left, right and centre. For the average person, the question is whether state bodies colluded to the extent suggested to stitch up a whistle-blower and if so, how was it achieved – and what to do to ensure this is not repeated. I know this much; we should be very concerned about the reach, influence and precedent set by the Communications Clinic. I can’t think of a lobby that interferes with our civil discourse to this extent. The INM man who cannot be named is also concerning.

    Reply
  5. Jupiter

    Great piece Brian , well articulated and the core of where most journalist s and MSM are at. We are in an era of rampant propaganda by the state and its institutions. Well done again Brian

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *