Listeners to last Friday’s episode of The Week that Really Was with myself and Sarah Ryan may have been introduced to what I humbly call “McGuirk’s Law of Irish Politics”. For those of you who missed it, a refresher:
McGuirk’s law of Irish politics that dictates that: An Irish politician, when entirely incapable of solving any of the problems that voters desire for him or her to solve, will instead invent from whole cloth an entirely new set of problems and devote himself to fixing those instead.
This creates the impression that the politician (or indeed, entire Government) has a handle on the issues and is being proactive, when in fact what is happening is displacement activity to conceal their own incompetence or helplessness.
Now, having taken that on board, here’s the latest news from the Sunday Business Post:
Commercial broadcasters would be required to introduce a register detailing the commercial interests of their presenters under plans being considered by government.
The Business Post understands Patrick O’Donovan, the communications minister, and officials in his department are evaluating plans to introduce such a register in the wake of the Ivan Yates controversy, where the pundit was presenting radio shows and podcasts while giving media training to politicians…..
….. Some of the thorny issues still to be ironed out include defining which interests would have to be declared to the broadcaster, whether those would then be shared publicly or just shared with
, and whether or not programme contributors would have to do the same.
The idea here is that it is a major problem, for example, if a radio host holds a discussion on housing while not disclosing that he is a small landlord himself. Or if a presenter (not mentioning any names here) was to interview clients of a public relations firm that employed, say, his daughter without disclosing that to his clueless listeners. Or if a retired politician says something about a Presidential Election on his podcast without mentioning that he’s done some media training work with one of the candidates.
Truly, we’re talking about foundational level threats to the very integrity of our democratic state, aren’t we?
Lest there be any doubt as to my own position, I agree that conflicts of interest should be declared, which is why for example I never write about education without mentioning that my wife is a teacher, or about farming without mentioning that both my brothers are in that line of work.
But do those even rise to the level of conflict of interest? For example, my wife’s job is permanent and pensionable and absent very severe levels of misconduct, almost impossible to be fired from. I have no financial interest either way when I write about education policy – my “conflict of interest” really only relates to whether readers might think I was advocating positions that might make her life easier, at the very margins.
So that’s the first question in relation to this lunacy being proposed by the Government: What is a conflict of interest? Do my personal views on migration policy, for example, constitute a conflict of interest when I choose which migration stories to assign to colleagues? Would my personal affinity for Manchester United preclude me from writing honestly about Liverpool FC if I was a sportswriter? Or does the conflict have to be entirely financial? And what is the threshold for that? If a person’s spouse or child has a financial interest in a topic, is that a conflict of interest? If my father holds bitcoin (he does not) does that preclude me from writing about cryptocurrencies?
The most ludicrous proposal of all relates to the notion that guest and interviewees on radio and television shows might have to go through a conflict of interest test of some kind: Here’s news for our media regulators: If you appear on a broadcaster to discuss something, you de facto have an interest which likely conflicts with the broadcaster’s obligations to remain neutral. It is their job to balance your views out – not to investigate whether you yourself are neutral.
Presumably, advocates of this policy might suggest that it relates only to commercial stories: For example, a broadcaster reviewing a family car without declaring that he or she has done some promotional work for Toyota or Kia. Or a social media influencer advancing the cause of some eye cream or toothpaste without telling you that the company has given them money. The latter issue seems to have driven (a primarily female) audience wild with annoyance in recent years.
But the point here is: When conflicts of that nature arise, they are generally swiftly uncovered and punished by the audience. An influencer who gets a name for “shilling” for companies will soon find themselves less in demand and less respected. A broadcaster who does not voluntarily declare conflicts of interest will find themselves subject to public controversy.
So, what is the state’s role here? And against whom will penalties by levelled? And what will those penalties be?
It would be unjust, of course, to penalise broadcasters directly. If a radio presenter failed to declare a conflict to his employer or his audience, should the station really be punished for wrongdoing by an employee who had failed to do his duty by them?
Or on the other hand, will we have the media regulator investigating and sanctioning broadcasters?
Most ludicrously of all, are we going to have the bananas situation where going on national radio or television as a guest becomes wrought with legal peril in case it is later uncovered by the Comm-ish-ooooooooooon that you mentioned housing but not the rental property in Ballina you inherited off your great-aunt?
Government has no business getting involved in this area at all. It is not a problem to begin with. And even if you are anally retentive enough to think it is a pressing problem, then you should note that Ivan Yates faced professional consequences for his own foolish silence without the involvement of any laws or state agencies at all.
This is not regulation: It is a power-grab. And it is being contemplated precisely because our politicians can’t do anything useful on housing, health, immigration, taxes, or energy. So they have invented this nonsense non-issue instead to make themselves sound, just for a moment, like serious people.
It’s all beneath contempt, really.