ON Thursday of last week The Irish Times published a large front-page photograph of Michelle Rocca and a smaller picture of Cathal Ryan, her one-time finance. Inside that day, The Irish Times devoted a full page to the court case involving Ms Rocca and Mr Ryan. On `he following day The Irish Times devoted two news pages to the Rocca-Ryan court case, plus another front-page piece. On Saturday a further two pages were allocated to the case (in each instance, minus some space reserved for advertising).

Last Wednesday night the RTE nine o'clock television news devoted 2 1/2 minutes to the Rocca-Ryan court case by its Legal Affairs Correspondent, who, obviously, had spent the day in court. This was repeated on Thursday and Friday nights. In addition, several minutes of each of the radio main news bulletins were given over to the case. And Today with Pat Kenny, the News at One and Daily Record did interviews arising from the case.

The Irish tabloid newspaper, the Star, allocated about the same space to the story as The Irish Times. The Irish Independent did the same but went one better by sending its "colour" writer to the court and she wrote about 1,000 words per day on the case.

Not since the X case has any court case received such coverage. The question therefore arises what is there about the Rocca-Ryan case that deserves such attention?

Clearly, the issue of violence against a woman is central to the case. The claim of the plaintiff, Ms Rocca, is that she was brutally beaten by Mr Ryan. That in itself is a serious issue and in so far as this allegation is illustrative of the treatment of women in society generally, and even in "high society", the case obviously has significance.

Perhaps also the case tells us something about wealth in Irish society. The defendant, Mr Ryan, is wealthy. He is so not for anything he has done himself with his life but because his father is hugely wealthy - I am not suggesting that he has earned no wealth himself, rather my point is that, his wealth derives primarily from inheritance. That issue of inherited wealth is certainly an important issue but it is hard to see how the case is directly relevant to that.

OF course the case is one before the courts and there is a legitimate interest in the operation of the courts system and in the administration of justice.

And apart from the issue of alleged violence against a woman and, at a distance, the issue of wealth, what is there involved that touches on matters that are in the public interest? Nothing.

So what are the news values which dictate that The Irish Times devotes so many pages, plus front-page coverage (including front-page colour photographs) to the case, that RTE, our "public service" broadcasting station, devotes such broadcasting time to the story and so engages the Legal Affairs Correspondent's time? Violence against women? Fiddlesticks.

There have been countless cases of far greater, illustrative significance to the issue of violence against women in Irish society than this and the cases got only minimal coverage in The Irish Times and, invariably, no RTE coverage at all. So the wall-to-wall coverage of the Rocca-Ryan case cannot be explained, on that ground. Inherited wealth? The issue is, too distant from the case and, anyway, there is little evidence that The Irish Times or our "public service" broadcaster is in any way interested in that issue.

And as for the public interest in the operation of the courts and the administration of justice - pull the other one.

It is quite clear that the explanation for the coverage is that the case is or has become of public interest and considerably so. It is because the case gives rise to prurient titillation that such vast coverage is accorded it.

There is nothing wrong with either prurience or titillation in themselves and if that is what people want and no harm is thereby caused to anybody, let the public have it. But is that or rather should that be the function of newspapers like The Irish Times and the Irish Independent and of the "public service" broadcasting station? And let us be clear that the rationale for the extent of the coverage this case has been allocated, in truth, is only prurient titillation.

AND if this is to be the criterion upon, which news judgments are based within our "serious" and "public service" media, then may the Lord preserve us.

Just look at this from one angle for a moment - from that of the deployment of RTE's Legal Affairs Correspondent. What follows is not at all a reflection on this capable and professional broadcaster but rather on those who assigned her to this story.

Is it really so that the Rocca-Ryan case was the best use of her time over three days last week and, God knows, how many more days to come? There was the judgment in the Tara-Bula High Court case on Thursday, for instance, which was covered by RTE news but hardly in a manner that reflected the significance of the debacle over the management of the most significant orebody ever discovered in Ireland.

But apart from the other major cases that were on last week and this would she not be better spending several days in one of the Bridewell district courts reporting on the tales of misery and deprivation that stream through those courts, apparently endlessly? Or how about the administration of justice in that part of the courts system that is closed off to the media, the family courts? A week spent talking to lawyers, parties and court officers about the adequacy of the justice system in those courts, about the treatment of women in those courts, would or could result in riveting and worthwhile court reportage.

I am not arguing that the Rocca-Ryan case should have received no coverage. My point is that the extent of the coverage it has received from our "serious" and "public service" media reflects news values that are skewed and that make nonsense of claims of public service motivation and focus. And it's upon such claims, incidentally, that demands for the liberalisation of the laws governing the media are based.

Perhaps in my previous incarnation as a newspaper editor I too made similarly skewed editorial judgments - almost certainly I did and, probably, on issues more serious than this. But I don't recall such coverage previously being given to a case so empty of matters touching upon what is in the public interest and I fear that what is now happening marks a turning point in the "tabloidisation" of our media generally.