Value of activists arguing for causes

Sir — I was very surprised at the tone struck by Conor Skehan warning about lobbyists in his column in last week’s Sunday Independent.

While I totally agree with his point on critical thinking and his advice regarding vigilance/ scepticism on information being presented as facts, his sweeping generalisations about NGOs and activists were not so well argued.

Does Conor have an issue with people who are “active” in society, in what we generally call civil society?

There is no doubt that new media has allowed civil society activists to generate publicity and funding on a scale to tackle many of the problems that confront us — but this is precisely because of the structures that exist in society today that leave very little choice.

Is Conor really saying that we should only get our information from “trusted sources”?

I wonder who would he put forward to be these “trusted sources”?

And is Conor really saying that concerns about housing — and concerns over environmental degradation, and climate change and pollution — would make it on to the political agenda if it wasn’t for civil society activists?

That seems unlikely. Remember, the well-paid industry lobbyists are generally much more powerful and have significantly more money and clout than the activists who take up the issues of the homeless, the dispossessed and the environmentalists.

Fintan J Lyons, Clontarf, Dublin 3