For the record and speaking plainly: it will never, ever be the case that a Cabinet Minister, or a regulatory body funded by the state, will dictate how Gript Media reports on fuel protests or on any other matter.
We can see Minister Patrick O’Donovan’s particular assertion that he would be asking Coimisiún na Meán to review the media coverage of the fuel protests to see if it was “balanced or was it skewed” for what it is: a threat to media which doesn’t toe the government line. To which we say, bring it on.
George Orwell famously said that “freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose”, but this latest threat would go even further. We need to defend our freedom to report on the news, not merely to offer comment and analysis. The threat to that freedom is, of course, especially writ large for independent media and for all journalists who reject bias by omission or think that they need to be mindful to the point of self-censorship for fear of rebuke from a formidable political establishment, one of whom has now threatened to deploy an already-controversial state regulator as an attack dog.
Bias by omission is a particularly invidious form of manipulation which seeks not just to distort information but to deny that a particular perspective or certain actions even exist at all. Ensuring the kind of censorious consensus which has caused such huge disconnect between the people and the establishment is challenged is why Gript was founded. It’s why we exist. It’s why we reject the idea that Coimisiún na Meán would be given powers to adjudicate at the behest of a Cabinet Minister whether we were in breach of an entirely subjective measure of balance because we interviewed protesters, for example.
That’s an especially pertinent example, because there are many topics – ranging from immigration to energy to fuel protests to parental rights – where Gript, in addition to some local outlets, were the first media platforms to give voice to people who held perfectly reasonable opinions or raised entirely valid objections but were being ignored by the mainstream media. It will never, ever be the case that we ask Minister O’Donovan or any State body for permission to do so.
Journalists not only have a right to cover news, they have an obligation and a duty to do so. Protecting that right protects a free society.
Not only did the Minister say that he thought a review of coverage of fuel protests would be a role for the media regulator, he wanted an examination of the coverage on social media too. Of course he did. Nothing bothers the political establishment more than the ability of ordinary people to make their voices heard on a platform that isn’t controlled or censored by the elites. Apart, perhaps, from the additional ability said social media platforms gives to protesters to organise.
“One of the things that I will be doing is examining it as well from a media and coverage point of view. Particularly social media, and particularly from a balance point of view,” O’Donovan said.
That any high-ranking politician felt confident to make such a thinly-veiled threat is indicative not just of how arrogant and out-of-touch our TDs are, but how deeply ingrained the instinct to shut down free speech is, particularly when protesters are successfully calling calamitous government policies to account.
But the Minister responsible for Communications and Media, has – most likely inadvertently – given a very significant insight into how the political elites view media freedom, and the importance they place on state control of the narrative.
He fretted that not enough airtime was being given to people who agreed with the fuel protests but objected to the protesters’ methods. “I didn’t see too many of those people get air time. A lot of hospital appointments were missed. I didn’t hear too many doctors being asked how things were in particular hospitals,” he said.
But that’s not true. Government TDs used claims that hospital appointments were being missed to criticise the protests and demand blockades were lifted – even though the protesters, and sometimes those attending medical appointments, said efforts was made to accommodate their passage and that lanes were left clear for ambulances. Stories that were seen as attacks on the character of blockade leaders were widely published. Comments made by Simon Harris that the protests were “a sinister and despicable attack on our economy and our society” or threats from the Minister for Justice regarding vehicles being seized and the Army being deployed were covered everywhere.
The Government, pedestals at the ready, already have permanent access to the national media, including the publicly-funded airwaves, at the drop of a hat, and have every opportunity to argue their case, defend their position, attack the actions of others, and make their spin heard. They have the biggest mic in the country. Yet one of their Ministers wants a review of how the media covers a fuel protest which has galvanised the nation.
His remarks should also bring fresh attention to the purpose of Coimisiún na Méan, a media regulator that is seen as being in receipt of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer funds because it is primed to act as an attack dog for the EU and its Digital Services Act against the social media platforms which have done so much to restore balance to the public narrative across a whole range of issues. They spent an eye-watering €30 million last year funding media – including directly funding ‘diverse and inclusive’ reporting.
The National Union of Journalists described Minister O’Donovan’s comments as “sinister and deeply disturbing”, adding that “the media minister is not a bystander but is in a position to influence the allocation of funds, the approval of commercial radio licenses and overall policy on broadcasting.”
They are entirely correct in that regard, but the NUJ has all-too-often been sadly lacking in defending press freedom, usually when the platform under attack is outside the groupthink which is a scourge on modern journalism and provides no threat to either Government or Opposition usually happily singing from the same hymn sheet – while the journalists who are meant to be holding them to account jostle for lucrative media advisory positions.
The NUJ seemed strangely muted, for example, when it was revealed last year that An Garda Síochána sought to force Twitter (now X) to hand over Gript Media’s private messages – because ‘Gript published footage, on X, of altercations between Gardaí and members of the public over the opening of an asylum centre in Newtownmountkennedy’.
Media freedom will be defended by journalists who continue to report fearlessly. Thank you for making Gript a platform committed to challenging the consensus.