Connect: 'The fundamentalist left has come to command great influence in the media and powerfully moulds public opinion," wrote Prof William Reville in this newspaper on August 25th.
Surely he was joking. The statement is one of the more absurd proffered by a professor in recent years. Mind you, it's common to hear "the media" characterised as such. But it's also very wrong.
Let's look at the evidence. Editors (excepting some proprietors and extreme political heavyweights) are, by definition, the people with the greatest power in print and broadcast media. They control publications and programmes and, despite Prof Reville's contention, it's difficult to find many "fundamentalist" lefties editing mainstream media in this State.
Consider the editor of this newspaper. Geraldine Kennedy was once a Progressive Democrat TD, and unless I'm mistaken, the PDs aren't quite left wing, never mind a seething segment of the "fundamentalist left". Perhaps Prof Reville believes Geraldine Kennedy was a fifth columnist among the PDs. That, however, seems as likely as Mary Harney being unmasked as a communist spy.
Over at Independent News & Media, which owns the country's biggest group of newspaper titles, it's unlikely that the editors in Independent House are plotting socialist revolution. Vinnie Doyle (Irish Independent), Aengus Fanning (Sunday Independent) and Gerry O'Regan (Evening Herald) just don't seem like Irish versions of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao.
Again, perhaps Prof Reville knows things about these people that the rest of us don't. Maybe Doyle, Fanning and O'Regan are secret Marxists, Maoists or even followers of Pol Pot who have pulled the wool over proprietor Sir Anthony O'Reilly's eyes. Perhaps they have merely hidden - albeit at great depth - their "fundamentalist left" convictions and are ready to foment revolution any day now.
Or how about the ultimate Irish media deception? O'Reilly is really just a pretend capitalist businessman who amassed more than €1 billion, became a press baron and a British knight just to deepen his cover as a fundamentalist leftie! Brilliant, eh? No doubt, whenever O'Reilly gives the sign, Doyle, Fanning and O'Regan will be ready to react.
Among the outlying Independent News & Media newspaper empire, Colm McGinty, editor of the Sunday World, Ger Colleran (the Star) and Nóirín Hegarty (Sunday Tribune) do not strike me as left of centre. Considering that their jobs depend on attracting sufficient advertisers and readers, they're likely, like almost all newspaper editors, not to want to alienate business.
The same applies to Cliff Taylor, editor of the Sunday Business Post and to Fiona McHugh, editor of the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, which, after all, is a Rupert Murdoch publication. Ireland on Sunday, edited by Paul Drury, is owned by the publishers of Britain's Daily Mail. Indeed few newspaper groups are more fundamentalist right than the Mail.
Munster seems safe from revolution too. Tim Vaughan, editor of the Irish Examiner and Maurice Gubbins (Evening Echo) seem unlikely to raise any more than a red flag for Cork's hurlers. Really, when you think about the absurdity that allowed William Reville to write what he did, the more bizarre it becomes. Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of people hold similar images of "the media".
There's broadcasting, of course, and that dreadful RTÉ, which partly exists on taxpayers' money, leaves it suspect. Still, Ed Mulhall, RTÉ's overall head of news and current affairs, Cillian de Paor (television), Michael Good (radio) and David Nally (current affairs) seem improbable members of any "fundamentalist left". Today FM and Newstalk seldom issue the call to man the barricades.
Irish language and regional print and broadcast media do not foment fundamentalist leftist fervour either. The notion that the left, never mind "the fundamentalist left", commands "great influence" and "powerfully moulds public opinion" is nonsense, utter nonsense. If it weren't, then Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael couldn't possibly remain as the two largest political parties in the state.
On the matter of religion v secularism, William Reville is, in fairness, right to say that fundamentalism exists on both sides. Nobody can prove or disprove to another person the existence of God and because of that nobody should force their opinions on the matter too vigorously on others. It's fair enough if people find adequate "proof" - either way - for themselves. Certainly, secularism is strong here now, but much of that is because of the virtual theocracy that existed until a generation ago. It's a staple of science (and life) that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction; too many of the theocrats, especially paedophiles, discredited their stated beliefs. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, but to many people it lessens the likelihood.
Anyway, the idea that secularism equals "left wing" and religion equals "right wing" is dangerous. "Left" and "right" are political, not theological, terms. Indeed, most secularists vote for "right wing" parties. In an acquisitive society their idea of "realpolitik" guarantees that. Conversely, the Catholic Church has been to the fore on "fundamentalist left" issues such as poverty, inequality and fairness.