Lord Hailsham died at his London home last Friday. He was 94. In the course of a political career which spanned more than half a century he served under six Conservative prime ministers, twice as Lord Chancellor. His passing has been described as the end of an era in British public life. Maybe. But in politics some things never change. One of these is the fraught relationship between politicians and the media, particularly in times of war and civil conflict.
It was a subject on which Lord Hailsham had strong views of a kind which are surfacing again, as the United States and Britain become ever more involved in a war where the wooing of public support is crucial.
I have reason to remember Lord Hailsham's attitudes. On November 21st, 1974, 19 people were killed and 182 injured when the IRA bombed two pubs in Birmingham. As we now know, other lives were permanently scarred by the bombs, including those of the six men wrongfully convicted of the crime. Some days after the attack Lord Hailsham told the House of Lords: "He (DAITHI O'Connell) gave his orders to his killers through Mary Holland, courtesy of London Weekend Television." At the time I was working in London for the current affairs programme Weekend World.
The Sunday prior to the Birmingham bombings the programme screened an interview I had done with O'Connell, at that time reputed to be chief of staff of the IRA. In the course of the interview, O'Connell said the IRA would be prepared "to take the war" to the British mainland. Lord Hailsham's theory was that somewhere in the interview O'Connell had given a secret signal to an IRA cell in Britain to go ahead with the bombings.
Anyone who worked in television knew the allegation was absurd. We had filmed well over an hour with O'Connell, which was edited down to about 20 minutes. He had no control over the editing and could not have known which parts of the interview would be screened. None the less the Tory peer's suggestion caused London Weekend Television considerable grief. The company asked him to repeat the allegation outside the privilege of the House of Lords. He declined to do so.
It has been - how can I put it? - bizarre to hear his theories raised again in the context of America's bombing of Afghanistan. Last week Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, held a video conference with the heads of the major US television networks about their reporting of the war against terrorism. She was particularly concerned that the screening of videotaped messages from Osama bin Laden and the Al Quaeda network could be used to send coded messages to terrorist cells instructing them to carry out further attacks.
Where the US leads, the Blair government can be relied on to follow. Last weekend Alistair Campbell, the Prime Minister's communications chief, held discussions with senior executives of the BBC, ITN and Sky News about their coverage of the war in Afghanistan. He urged them to treat all statements from the Taliban with extreme scepticism, and to bear in mind the possibility that bin Laden could use television to activate further terrorist attacks.
All this is nothing new. It is almost 20 years since Norman Tebbit compiled a dossier of complaints to the BBC about Kate Adie's coverage of the American bombing of Libya. Now the formidable Adie is in trouble again. Alistair Campbell has described her as "irresponsible" for revealing details of Tony Blair's itinerary in the Middle East, information which had already been given on Arab television. He may have bitten off more than he bargained for. Adie has said she will be seeking legal advice.
During the Gulf War the reports of CNN journalist Peter Arnett from Baghdad led to accusations that he was being manipulated by Saddam Hussein. During the Kosovo crisis, the BBC's John Simpson was described by one British official as a "Serbian mouthpiece". These and other journalists were subjected to pressure because they were doing their job, to inform the public to the best of their ability about what was going on.
What has all this got to do with Ireland? Quite a lot. In the past, the Irish media has had great freedom in reporting international conflicts, even when this has involved annoying other countries, as happened during the Falklands war. But we are now in much closer and dependent relationships with both the US and Britain. RT╔, to its credit, has devoted considerable resources to covering the Afghan war and is asking searching questions. This could well become embarrassing to the Government, particularly in terms of Ireland's membership of the UN Security Council.
There are other clouds on the horizon. David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary, told the House of Commons he intended to seek a derogation from the European Convention of Human Rights to introduce new security measures These will include the power to intern terrorist suspects who cannot be deported to their own countries because they might face imprisonment or death.
We have a record of following Britain enthusiastically in such matters and must be alert to the possibility of such measures being mooted here. We have enough experience to know that ditching civil liberties is no way to fight a war which is being conducted, according to the American President, in defence of progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
mholland@irish-times.ie