The abuse heaped on Pat Rabbitte’s head by a variety of commentators because he dared to criticise media standards goes a long way towards proving that his criticism had a point.
While Rabbitte is well able to dish out the invective himself in debates with political opponents, his views deserve more careful consideration than they have received to date.
The worrying aspect of the media response is that it has been dominated by an intolerant refusal to accept that there could be any validity in Rabbitte’s criticism. The general reaction has been to attack the man and ignore his argument.
That response is reminiscent of the attitude of the Catholic Church in the days when it was the dominant institution in the country. Institutions who believe they are motivated by higher ideals than ordinary mortals have a dangerous tendency to reject all criticism.
Rabbitte’s key argument is that the media has become engaged in a relentless denigration of politics which could ultimately have adverse effects on society.
“There is an all-pervasive negativity in the media that is not helping the mood of a people that is in distress and difficulty,” he said.
While journalists rushed to dismiss the Minister’s claim, a former political opponent, ex-PD minister Liz O’Donnell, was a rare voice in his support. “When is the last time you read or heard a positive comment about a living politician?” she asked in her newspaper column.
Most politicians are wise enough not to expect any gratitude from the media, even if they do a good job, but it is worth considering whether there is any merit in Rabbitte’s claim that the media is now dominated by “an all-pervasive negativity”.
Two decades ago American journalism professor Ted J Smith identified this as a growing trend in the coverage of US politics which was actually damaging the credibility of the media. “Their most common criticism, endorsed by huge majorities in most polls, is that coverage is unduly negative and intrusive.”
Smith attributed media negativity to a number of factors. One was that the media had ceased to regard its main function as being to report what was happening in the political world but rather to act as a watchdog on political institutions.
“The media has emerged as a sort of permanent parliamentary opposition but without the need to defend a position or offer any reasonable alternatives to the policies it attacks.”
Given the mistakes made by senior politicians in the years running up to the crash it is hardly a surprise that media coverage of politics turned increasingly negative. Unfortunately such scepticism was sadly absent when the big mistakes were being made, but it has been applied unremittingly towards the politicians who have been left with the task of trying to sort out the mess from 2008 onwards.
Comfort zone
Unlike the political opposition, who at least have to offer some kind of alternative policies if they are to have any credibility, the media doesn’t have to offer any. It has the comfort of always being able to criticise and has no compunction about switching the point of attack to whatever policy the government of the day embarks on.
This constant carping could ultimately undermine faith in democratic politics as Rabbitte believes, but in reality it is probably more likely to undermine public confidence in the media.
A few months ago a recent Irish emigrant interviewed on RTÉ television news said the great thing about living in London was that she did not have to listen to the constant whingeing on RTÉ anymore.
Obviously the media has an important role to play in holding government and all powerful institutions to account but that is not its only function. The primary function of the media is to report the truth and to keep the public as fully informed as possible about what is going on in society.
Unremitting cynicism about politics is actually the laziest form of journalism. Digging up the truth is the difficult part.
Former Irish Times editor Conor Brady recalled a few days ago how this newspaper broke the story of the X case in 1992 in spite of a High Court ruling designed to keep the public ignorant of what was going on.
His successor, Geraldine Kennedy, had the courage to defy the planning tribunal and the highest courts in the land to ensure that the public was informed of payments made to then taoiseach Bertie Ahern when he was minister for finance in the early 1990s. That was courageous journalism in the public interest.
Instead of dismissing Rabbitte’s views the media should welcome an open debate about standards. The role of public service broadcasting in the changing media environment is another topic that requires open debate and it is something that Rabbitte himself needs to focus on.
He would be wise, though, not to worry too much about those in the media intent on denigrating his government at every turn.
British Conservative prime minister Lord Salisbury, who governed at the turn of the 20th century, had the following to say about the power of the media: “These gentlemen of the press much exaggerate their own power… They bear much the relation to a man’s unpopularity that flies do to a wound. If the wound exists, they can aggravate it and make it malignant, but they cannot make the wound.”
Ultimately this Government’s fate will depend on whether or not it leaves the country a better place than it found it. The people and not the media will be the ultimate judge of that.
In the meantime Rabbitte and his critics could do worse than tune in to the wonderful Danish political drama Borgen on BBC 4. It is politics for grown-ups, mercifully free of clichés about venal politicians and heroic journalists, and entertaining into the bargain.