The over-riding objective for those of us in media is, and should always be, “the reporter is not the story”.
Over the past eight days, both I as Editor and all of my colleagues as individuals here at Gript Media have attempted to abide by that principle. A week ago, my colleague Ben Scallan attempted to ask Deputy Ruth Coppinger of the Socialist Party about her views on the Government’s plans to increase deportations of unsuccessful asylum seekers. We thought, and still think, that the views of an opposition party on a policy announcement by the Government are worth hearing and are a matter of public interest. The question was not tough, nor was it specific. It was the softest of softballs: Can you tell us your views, please?
Deputy Coppinger declined to respond to that question on the basis that she has fundamental objections to the “editorial line” of Gript Media. Her accusations against us, repeated at length in a 30 minute press conference this morning – a week after the actual event – are too lengthy and too scattergun to itemise.
However, some of them, aside from being defamatory, are rankly dishonest: For example, citing a piece I wrote last week, the Deputies today alleged that this news outlet endorses the practice of sex for rent. In fact, the piece in question, which you can read for yourself here, described sex for rent as “abhorrent” and “exploitative” while raising questions about whether proposed legislation could be effective.
Over the past week, Deputy Coppinger and hundreds of her supporters have asserted the truism that she is not obliged to answer questions from this media outlet. We agree. She is not. However, that was never at issue.
What is at issue is whether she can credibly continue to pick and choose those journalists she will, and will not, answer to. Last week, two reporters from outlets with very different “editorial lines” to this one objected to her conduct on the basis that Deputy Coppinger can either answer questions from the media as a whole, or they would decline to put questions to her as a matter of their choice. As a matter of logic, if Deputy Coppinger is not obliged to answer questions, then surely it must also be the case that reporters are not obliged to ask them of her.
For that, the two Deputies today called the position adopted by the Irish Mirror’s Louise Burne and the Irish Times’ Jack Horgan Jones “pathetic”.
She might reflect, one hopes, on the irony therein.
As for the position of this outlet, it is straightforward: We have never treated, nor will we treat, the people’s elected representatives with discourtesy. When we ask questions of them on behalf of our readers, we will always do them the fairness of publishing their responses to those questions in full, and unedited. We do not engage in aggressive questioning or long backs and forth, for those debates are correctly the province of elected TDs, not unelected reporters. Where we have a view, we will articulate it in an editorial, or through opinion pieces like this one. Openly, and transparently.
We will continue to send reporters to press events held by the deputies, and we will continue to ask them questions on matters of public interest, courteously and fairly. That is our job.
Further, we are voluntarily but comprehensively regulated by the Press Council of Ireland, whose job it is to impose standards on the press. Twice over the past six years, the Press Council has found that some element of our reporting breached in a minor way a principle of the code of practice for media outlets. In a similar timeframe, the same number of complaints have been upheld against The Irish Times, for example.
On both occasions, we published that finding prominently, as we are obliged to do. Never, however, has the Press Council found that this outlet breached any of our responsibilities in relation to principle 8 of the code of practice, which mandates that “The press shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.”
You will note the very low bar here, and I repeat: In six years of operation, and despite numerous complaints, often from ideologically motivated complainants, we have never been found to be in breach of that principle. This is because despite what Deputy Coppinger appears to believe, this outlet neither seeks nor desires to stir up hatred, or cause offence.
It is for other media outlets to consider their ongoing response to the position adopted by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy, particularly in the context of their being two people who ultimately seek the power to govern this state.
Their explicit position in relation to Gript Media is that they will not answer questions from us because they disagree so firmly with our editorial line on various issues. That raises fundamental questions about how both deputies might govern, should they ever get the chance. What ideological tests might Irish media outlets have to pass in order to retain the right to ask questions of their would-be elected Government? We can take it as a given, I think, that Gript Media would not receive funding under a People before Profit Government (one reason we refuse to apply for any such funding). But for other outlets who do accept state funding in good faith, it is not now an open question as to whether the continued employment of their journalists would be contingent on Ruth Coppinger’s personal and ideological approval?
The final point I will make here is to respond to the unfounded calumny that Gript Media is in some way responsible for the alleged hostility experienced over the last week on social media by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy. It is certainly the case that their position in relation to answering questions from this outlet provoked anger and disagreement in a section of the population. It is very likely that some of that anger was discourteously and aggressively communicated to them.
However, that anger is the result of their own choices and actions, not as a result of anything that this outlet or any of its employees did to them. The public, it turns out, are suspicious of politicians who refuse to answer basic questions about their views. That speaks well of the public. It says nothing at all about Gript Media. All we did was to share the full video of the exchange without any comment from this outlet.
However, on this occasion I think it is important to comment: For this Ruth Coppinger now so strenuously opposed to alleged anger from the public is the very same Ruth Coppinger who said the following about Joan Burton, after the then Tánaiste was physically restrained in her car by protestors she herself endorsed, all the way back in 2014:
RUTH COPPINGER BELIEVES Tánaiste Joan Burton has “brought animosity upon herself” because of her actions in government.
The Socialist/Anti-Austerity Alliance TD has again defended the controversial anti-water charge protest against Burton in Jobstown last November, insisting that people had a right to be angry at the Labour leader and that it was ”generally peaceful”.
Burton and her special adviser Karen O’Connell were held in a car for over two hours in a demonstration which involved Coppinger’s party colleague Paul Murphy and has been the subject of a garda investigation…..
In an interview with TheJournal.ie, Coppinger said of the abuse aimed at Burton: It’s not a Sunday School, people are angry, people are going to shout abuse, like you’d get at any Croke Park match.
There is, Deputy Coppinger said, a “right to be angry”. It appears that the position in this respect has changed.
I will finish this piece with a thank you: I recognise that Gript Media has a different editorial line on some major questions facing Irish society than many of our competitor outlets. I believe, and continue to believe, that diversity of opinion is important in society, and that people of all views should be represented in politics and in the media. We have never hidden the fact that we exist to provide some diversity of opinion on controversial issues including but not limited to immigration, crime and punishment, education, transgender issues, abortion, and this country’s role on the international stage. I believe we do this job well, and the hundreds of thousands of people who consume our content every week are testament to that fact.
However, over the past week, it has been heartening to see many journalists who do not share – and in some cases might even be appalled by – our editorial line come to our defence. That is I think because they recognise something fundamental: That the reporter speaks on behalf of the interested citizen. That the journalist, in their purest form, is the vox populi. That we do not ask questions on our own behalf, but on behalf of ordinary Irish citizens who do not have the privilege of standing before their elected representatives seeking answers.
The insult, if there has been one, from Deputies Coppinger and Murphy has not been to Gript Media. It has been to every citizen of this state who relies on the media to hold politicians to account for their views. I am deeply grateful, as are my colleagues, for the solidarity that has been shown to us. Should we ever be in a position to repay it, we will do so.