The fine line between provocative argument and downright unfairness came under scrutiny when Mary Ellen Synon and the Sunday Independent published an extraordinary article by her about the Paralympics. Right-wing revisionist polemics can help sell newspapers, but this one went too far. Sales fell; advertisers threatened to withdraw. Synon lost her job.
Synon had signed her opinion piece. Not so the article in this month's Magill where an anonymous writer queries the bias of the Laffoy Commission on the abuse of children in State institutions.
A section called Revising the Present states that "many alleged victims will have been young offenders, with all the baggage and possible motivations this might imply".
It suggests that the prospect of "financial gain" and "financial reward" is "surely a recipe for massive fraud and dishonesty, particularly when the alleged victims seem to be people who, as adolescents at least, had a history of disturbance or even criminal activity".
John Waters, Magill's consulting editor, admitted to RTE's Liveline that he wrote the piece. The radio show had contacted him because so many listeners phoned to say it was inaccurate, offensive, and extremely hurtful. The calls continued all week. Experts went on air to show that contrary to Magill's suggestion, the vast majority of incarcerated children were innocent of any offence, save a background of poverty. The more incarcerated, the more money went to the institutions.
Less than 6 per cent of the 70,000 children in question were offenders even in the old meaning of the term, rather than the "many" Magill asserted. The "crimes" of that tiny minority ranged from robbing orchards to stealing chickens and eggs.
Such facts did not get in Magill's way. It argued that the Laffoy Commission had "in effect canvassed for applications from those seeking to allege abuse against members of religious orders".
It implied that the entire process was pro-victim, because there "appears to be a presumption of guilt in relation to those who are alleged too (sic) have been abusers". Magill might not have been aware of the tortuous journey that marks the developing Laffoy Commission and its many clients. Over 30 official reports had already accepted the reality of sexual and physical abuse in many institutions. The courts confirmed a number of cases.
Perceptions grew that the process might be biased towards abusers and, particularly, those who employed them. Despite the Taoiseach's apology to survivors on May 11th, 1999, the Statute of Limitations was not extended to physical abuse cases, and that for sexual abuse ran out within days of the deadline for submissions to the commission this summer, affecting people's ability to take civil cases.
Religious orders, the State and individual defendants were allowed have their own legal teams. Survivors were informed they would be collectively represented by a single legal team.
The Government's decision to exclude day-pupils, visitors, and children in hospital was not reversed.
Time dragged on, delaying justice to all. Two years after Ahern's apology, Justice Laffoy's interim report said the Department of Education was causing delays which were "unnecessary and potentially damaging to the [commission's] credibility and independence". The same month, convicted paedophile James Kelly, known as Brother Ambrose, was advised of his early release from prison. Kelly had received a 36-year jail sentence, and a further three-year term. By June, he'd served 18 months.
Magill's attack on survivors' credibility could hardly have appeared at a more opportune time from the point of view of those who may have to pay compensation.
By August, the Government had appointed a four-person Compensation Advisory Committee as a precursor to the Redress Board it undertook to appoint in 1999. In late September, the advisers drafted invitation-to-meet letters to some survivors and interested parties. They began to arrive within days of Magill's publication.
All publicity may be good publicity to them who need it. Magill's circulation has been falling steadily since Vincent Browne sold it to Mike Hogan in 1998. Browne had revived the magazine a year previously, having published between 1975 and 1991.
Magill's sales are not audited by the Audit Bureau who verify figures provided by other magazines and newspapers. Mike Hogan, its publisher, has said sales are in the region of 25,000. Others suggest the figures are considerably less, running at average monthly sales of 11,000 last year. Sales for January-June 2001 are estimated at an average 13,500, they reckon, with the July issue selling in or around 8,000 copies.
Possible motivations of financial gain can as readily argue Magill's decision to publish the unsigned piece. If 25 per cent of survivors buy the current issue, Magill stands to gain some 17,500 sales.
Even if new sales are confined to the Laffoy Comission's complainants, Magill may increase its October sales by as much as 30 per cent.
Revisionism or reality? When Joe Duffy used the word "paedophile" in a general context, John Waters retorted it was "an emotive concept". For "many" listeners, the effects are not abstract.
"It's not about the money," a man said. "I'd give what I have to know how to love. Nobody showed me any."
mruane@irish-times.ie