LEST dark myths are circulating which suggest the Reynolds Sunday Times libel case proves that the British based newspaper holds a detrimental view of Ireland, it is important to place it in context.
This was not a case of paddy bashing. Nor was it part of some dark plot by the paper to discredit Albert Reynolds and the sincerity of his peace making.
I concede that it could be seen as an isolated instance of a journalist getting carried away, a maverick one off incident. But I prefer to view it as a landmark case, a possible turning point in the unceasing struggle by the press, in Britain and Ireland, to secure genuine press freedom.
Let us dispense first with the allegation that it was a piece of anti Irish prejudice by a British based newspaper. That argument falls at the first hurdle: the article which so offended Mr Reynolds was written by Alan Ruddock, who may well have a political agenda of hid own, but is an Irishman whose family home remains in Dublin.
Mr Ruddock's decision not to publish in the British edition of the Sunday Times the lengthy analysis written by Vincent Browne for the Irish edition was based, in part, on his belief that British readers would not understand it. They would not have the background knowledge, let alone know half the names mentioned.
He also believed, on the basis of what he had been told (admittedly by only one source), that Mr Browne's piece was too tentative. Mr Ruddock was eager to be more judgmental. Hence the eventual article headlined: "Goodbye Gombeen Man: How a fib too far proved fatal for Ireland's peacemaker and Mr Fixit."
Ironically, the use of the phrase "Gombeen Man" would certainly have gone over the heads of most British readers. But they would have been in no doubt that the former Taoiseach was being called a liar. It is impossible to believe that this allegation, confined to the British edition, could have made a ha'porth - well, a pennyworth - of difference to the internecine war in the Dail, to Mr Reynolds's Irish political aspirations and to the continuing search for peace.
Even if Mr Reynolds was brought into disrepute in Britain, in what way could it affect him within Ireland? The 75,000 Irish buyers of the Sunday Times were aware only of Mr Browne's measured article. It is too far fetched ft imagine that the newspaper, by demeaning Mr Reynolds in Britain might somehow stifle the peace process. That super conspiracy theory just doesn't hold together.
So let us move on to a mores probable scenario: Mr Ruddock went out on a limb and overstated his case. There is some currency in this view.
But none of this gets to the heart of the matter. There is a much more important point to grasp here which, in a sense, is reflected in the jury's apparent decision to look both ways at once. I prefer to see their judgment, agreeing it was a libel and awarding nothing for it, as worthy of Solomon.
They must have taken on board - the larger question. Why should newspapers within Britain be sued for libel by those who live outside it? The same might well be asked in Ireland. Surely a national press finds itself in an impossible situation if it cannot speak out robustly, even libellously on occasion, about foreign politicians?
A paper cannot defend itself when sued if it cannot compel witnesses from a foreign country to give evidence. When you consider these problems, it's truly amazing, isn't it, how a split jury can still come up with an excellent decision.
