This afternoon.

Wolfwalkers

Ireland’s only Oscar 2021 nom’.

Thanks, Academy.

Irish film Wolfwalkers lands Oscar nomination (RTÉ)

From top: Last week’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle interview with Oprah Winfrey; Grace Garvey

A week is a long time in lockdown. Last Monday evening, some 725,000 of us tuned in for the RTÉ broadcast of Oprah’s interview with Harry and Meghan, while a further 100,000 watched on Player the following day. The prospect of a squabble in someone else’s family was a welcome diversion, but a mere week later, it’s wall-to-wall plague again.

Not so for royal biographer and New York-based Brit, Tina Brown, who said on CBS the morning after, that we will be talking about the landmark interview in 20 years’ time. ‘Let’s all bow down to the real queen here: Oprah!’ she said.

Oprah is certainly a dab hand at the celebrity interview but had it been a legal setting, we’d be calling for a cross-examination to move things along. Questions were left unasked, and it seemed to go on. Although the host said at the outset that no subject was off limits and Meghan hadn’t been primed, it felt somewhat staged. The battle lines had been drawn under the neighbour’s pergola.

None of this would matter if such damaging accusations hadn’t emerged. Oprah managed to weave together the threads of the story but left some niggling knots behind.

Why, for instance, hadn’t she asked why Harry couldn’t access mental healthcare for his wife? He himself has been in therapy for years, and is patron of a mental health charity. He had spoken previously of the importance of getting help. Surely it would have taken but a quick call.

Shortly after the interview went live, I got an email from a London friend calling Meghan a despicable witch. She pronounced her a con woman who had pulled off a heist. Clothing herself in Diana’s weeds, she had manipulated Harry, before making off with fame and fortune to the Santa Barbara sun. Behold Meghan the villain!

Furthermore, my friend had a ready answer to the mental health conundrum. Approaching HR was all about the optics. It wouldn’t have served Meghan’s purpose to arrange help privately as no one would know. She had to be seen to make the request and be rebuffed.

But what if HR had said yes? I asked, momentarily donning Oprah’s boots. Would that not have scuppered the plan?

My sister took the opposing view. Any couple who had a rescue dog and chickens was fine by her. The Palace had done nothing to protect Meghan from the vitriol of the tabloid press, and Harry had been quite the prince in freeing himself of the straitjacket and getting his family out. She was glad the Queen had come up smelling of peonies, but felt the royal legacy of dysfunction speaks for itself.

So, having invested almost an hour-and-a-half in this bonus episode of The Crown, I felt a little let down by Oprah’s approach. Due to her nonchalance on a few crucial issues, I simply didn’t know what to believe. I wasn’t expecting Frost Nixon, but a more interrogative style might have nailed things down.

On the racism allegation, a bit of context wouldn’t have gone amiss. Meghan mentioned ‘concerns and conversations’ about how dark their baby’s skin might be. Racism is someone being disadvantaged or denigrated because of their race; a discussion about a person’s race or skin hue is not. Was their child to be denied a title because he might not be lily white? That was implied but never actually said.

A London contact with bi-racial children, who has previously lived in LA, questions the wisdom of swapping life in the UK for ‘the race-relations pressure cooker that is America, now contaminating the UK with its racial-tribal politics’. But clearly for Meghan, it was an informed move.

How seriously the issues raised will be taken, who can say. The Palace issued a short, conciliatory statement two days later, the Queen reportedly having rejected an earlier draft. “Recollections may vary,‘’ it said – someone’s telling porkies, let’s find out more? And promising that matters would be dealt with ‘by the family privately’. That sounds promising as long as it doesn’t amount to sweeping it under the Aubusson rugs.

Whether or not Oprah is the real queen, she’s the only winner here. CBS paid her production company $7 million for the interview rights, and the fallout continues to make news. On this side of the pond, we’re eyeing Michael D with fresh regard. He costs the Irish taxpayer a puny €3.5 million a year, as opposed to the £350 million per annum it takes to maintain the relic to an imperial past.

We can now return to our own domestic strife knowing at least that we’re all created equal and none of us is born to rule. It’s also liberating to be able to pop out for a pint of milk without worrying that the security detail has been pulled.

Grace Garvey is a Communications and Content Marketing Strategist. Grace can be reached at ggarvey2021@gmail.com. 

Pic: Harpo

Gulp.

Gavin Sheridan, co-founder of accountability project Right To Know, challenges our decision to feature an interview with covid response critic Ivor Cummins and to repost a tweet criticising mask-wearing from author Naomi Wolf.

Right or wrong?

YOU decide

Meanwhile…

Via Tim Foyle in Off-Guardian (full article at link below), writes:

…So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension?

Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere?

That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world?

The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous.

Why?

It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder.

So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a ‘game’, in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for ‘winning’ are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly?

Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being.

All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naiveté bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?

The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with – a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise.

In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously – in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both.

Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith – as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.

Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one’s own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility – to develop and cultivate a mature faith – which many are, understandably, unaware of.

What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?

I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its ‘default’ infant setting.

While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped.

And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it.

And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.

In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow – above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy – corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit.

These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview – in short, where there is a barred door – mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever.

FIGHT!

On The Psychology Of The Conspiracy Denier (Tim Foyle, Off-Guardian)

Pic: Allstock

For the week that’s in it.

Any excuse.

Any excuse 2.

From Elvis to The Muppets, the story of “Danny Boy” (RTÉ Brainstorm)

That’s what it’s all about.

FIGHT!

This Wednesday.

A new pop-up radio station will appear for one day,

Anne Marie Walsh writes:

Brought about by a new partnership from the team behind Christmas FM and Novatone Music Media, ‘This is Ireland’ from Christmas FM will showcase the best of Ireland in celebration of Saint Patrick’s Day.

With live presenters from 6am to 6am, ‘This is Ireland’ from Christmas FM will explore the songs and stories of Ireland and the influence of Irish culture across the globe

Get involved by sending a greeting to family & friends…

1. Record your greeting on your phone in a quiet location (keep your message to 30-60 seconds)

2. Email it to ireland@christmasfm.com

‘This is Ireland’ can be heard wherever you listen to Christmas FM. Ask your smart device to ‘Start Christmas FM’ or ‘Play Christmas FM’

This is Ireland (Christmas FM)

Last night/this morning.

Alan Rusbridger (top left), the former editor of the Guardian, has stepped down from the government’s Future of  Media commission following controversy over his employment of Roy Greenslade (right), who recently revealed that he had supported the IRA’s use of violence during the Troubles and had concealed that fact to protect his employment.

Via The Guardian:

Rusbridger said he had been heartened by support from his fellow commissioners and the culture and media minister, Catherine Martin, who last week backed his continued involvement.

One article by Greenslade in 2014 was critical of Máiría Cahill and a BBC documentary that aired her claim about being raped by a former IRA member.

The Guardian apologised to Cahill last week saying, as did Rusbridger, who said Greenslade should have been explicit about his support for the IRA. After the Guardian’s readers’ editor completed a review of this and two other Greenslade articles regarding Cahill’s case all three articles were removed from its website.

Alan Rusbridger quits Irish media body over Roy Greenslade controversy (The Guardian)

RollingNews

Broadsheet.ie